> What's the point of ECC RAM in consumer PCs?
Some people do very professional stuff with consumer PCs.
125 karma · joined February 25, 2016
Some people do very professional stuff with consumer PCs.
It gets you to do the math.
The $100 estimate was based on a scenario where the AMD product ran 100W hotter and ran all year long with a heavy workload.
In reality, the comparable offer from Intel runs only 10W hotter, and a normal workload, at best, only costs some cents per year.
After all those years saving money going with the best and cheaper offering from AMD, the money you save gets you more cash to upgrade your computer.
Because economic matter.
But even considering your goalpost-moving argument, why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children?
If you and people like you constantly prioritize maximizing your personal income level over not neglecting your own children, it is rather obvious that you will end up neglecting your children to pursuit a larger paycheck.
But that doesn't mean your job demands it. It's you that is demanding it. You neglect your children because you opt to pursuit a higher paycheck.
But that doesn't mean anyone is forced to neglect their children just to keep a well-paying job. That's only your own personal choice, and you don't justify your personal life choices by throwing blanket accusations and baseless assumptions like you've been doing in this thread.
No, it's a baseless assumption. You're somehow assuming that the only reason someone may even argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career is "only because they have money to out source their parental duties". That's a blatant baseless assumption. You may feel that, considering your career and the way you've been managing it, the only reason why someone may succeed in not neglecting their kids is if they pay someone else to do their job, but that obviously doesn't mean that your baseless assumption has any truth to it.
Simple math isn't worth anything if you get the facts all wrong.
Holy jumping to assumptions, batman.
No, it doesn't.
It says that there is a correlation between being a married woman with offspring and a lower expected salary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
Furthermore, if you even had read the article you would've noticed the bit where it says "Weinberg says that the data cannot identify or tease apart factors that might explain why married women with children earn less — among the possibilities"
http://www.reuters.com/article/france-spain-electricity-idUS...
There are,mainly in the Azores islands.
You should also see the links that show the premium that energy users are forced to pay as a consequence of the government's investment in wind and hydro.
If you care about the economy and competitiveness, paying a premium for something whose alternative is currently in a historically-low cost is something that does matter.
Warm feelings don't power farms and factories.
Only if people writing code are entirely oblivious to what UTF-8 is. The most basic feature of UTF-8 is that it's a variable-length encoding scheme. If the main feature is it's variable-length, why would any programmer assume the length doesn't vary?
Putting a viaduct in the middle of nowhere, where eminent domain committed by a totalitarian state lets you get access to very cheap land usage, is not a fair comparison with having to dig holes in a high-density city.
Automated automobiles won't help cutting trip times, which is the main reason why people pay to fly or to ride a high-speed train.
True.
But if the only track record is a string of failures, it would be madness to expect this time to be different, particularly as the main problems that plagued other technologies still persist and are being repeated while being brushed aside.
> particularly when exponential change is involved
Even minor changes have disastrous results. Case in point: BART. It's a conventional railway service in the same fashion that's being done for decades all over the world, and somehow the "exponential change" that has been attempted in that project was more than enough to render it a failure.
The main reason why people keep investing in tried-and-true technologies is because the risk of trying it again and succeeding is far lower than reinventing the wheel, even if it's a fancy, popular wheel that is promised to go very fast.
The author starts by claiming that the term "open source" has become meaningless, but then proceeds in providing a precise definition as defined by the Open Source Initiative. Then he proceeds to assert that licenses "are not a useful way to define modern open source anymore" (oh really?) to proceeds to suggest that his personal definition of open source involves the use of a service that forces the users to define a precise license for each project.
In the process, the author claims that "early open source was about the idea that code is ownerless", when the very basis of what open source software is, and always has been, is founded on the fact that each code contribution does have an owner who licenses his contribution under a very specific open source license which guarantees a series of rights to access and redistribute the source code.
In short, this blog entry is plain bullshit and a complete waste of time.
This is a discussion on a book on the C programming language written by someone, and here you are going full throttle on your personal vendetta against the author while saying absolutely nothing regarding the book or the programming language.
> Sure, I'm discussing his character
Precisely.
Go vent your frustrations somewhere else.
Perhaps if you don't have an opinion on the actual topic, you should refrain from commenting on it the best thing you have to add are a series of ill-advised ad hominems.
Some of today's dominant platforms are developed mostly in Java (see Android), and web development targets the LAMP stack. This means that the business is centered in ventures that exclude most languages, not because there is technical merit on other alternatives.
I'm sure it's possible to gather some individuals that are more than willing to badmouth Java and Python with a passion with the same ease we see here people complaining about C.
We also have nearly 40 years of infrastructure built on C, which needs to be maintained and updated.
This is the same old argument advocating for rewriting everything from scratch just because someone somewhere managed to develop a new flavor of the month.
There are plenty of reasons why the whole world still has a heavy demand for COBOL and FORTRAN developers, and the development of new flavor of the month isn't a good enough reason to eliminate this demand.
No, it's a blatant ad hominem.
The guy invested his time and effort trying to improve the world by writing a technical book, which he then proceeded to give it away for free, and to this we see people like barbs replying with personal attacks accusing the author of being mentally disturbed to the point of requiring therapy.
This is a personal attack at its worst.
Perhaps the issue here is the C programming language and how teaching it can be improved, not what insults and personal attacks a random user online is able to throw at the author of a technical book.
People have more to lean from writing on undefined behavior than puerile complains regarding comments on penis sizes and ironic accusations of immaturity.
This observation fails to take into account real-world requirements of building this sort of infrastructure. Pylon costs (queue the starcraft references) are irrelevant. The relevant bit is building all the tunnels, bridges, and earthworks required to get a smooth-enough train route that is able to safely support the track, provide a safe ride at Hyperloop's projected speeds, provide a conformable ride, and do it all in cost-effective an easy to maintain technology.
In high-speed railway, track defects are measured in wavelengths of fractions of a milimeter in amplitude and periods of 6 to 10 to 50 meters. If you increase the speed, either the limit for the wavelength period increases or the amplitude limits need to be further reduced. Setting up a 200-meter track segment with a sub-milimeter tolerance limit isn't cheap.
I find it rather doubtful that it will change anything for a number of reasons, including:
- governments don't even care to invest in their existing railway network, and are highly resistant in finding any justification for high-speed networks (not even very-high speed)
- the hyperloop concept is only a concept, it's disastrously expensive, based on untried technology, and highly vulnerable to a disastrous PR campaign. Keep in mind that it took a single accident to ground the whole Concorde fleet, in spite of all its history and having major backers.
- mass transit decision-makers are very conservative and highly risk-adverse. Money is spent only on tried-and-true technology. In the rare cases that it isn't, all hell breaks loose (see BART)
- no one knows what will it cost to maintain it, or its reliability.
- High-speed railway only makes sense in the small window of opportunity sandwiched between cases where air travel and car/roadway travel makes sense. That window of opportunity is located somewhere, IIRC, between travel distances between 200 and 600km. Additionally, for high-speed railway to make sense, it needs to be connected with other mass transit systems through effective multimodal transport hubs. This is very expensive and takes a lot of planning respected throughout centuries of investment in infrastructure and urban planning. The hyperloop concept fails to deliver in any of the requirements while in return bringing nothing to the table.
Let's keep things in perspective: France, Germany, and Japan already have decades of high-speed railway under their belt and are packed with success stories. Yet, the whole world in general, and the US in particular, decided not to follow them in their successful venture. These decisions are made rationally. Why would anyone suddenly invest in a high-risk concept that fails to justify itself?
Actually, it doesn't.
The judicial process goes on, and if (or when) the next-in-line is caught in the dragnet then the same fate awaits him.
This is the main thing about Dilma Roussef's partisans that leaves everyone dumbfounded. Their argument essentially boils down to "this is somehow a coup because although my guy is corrupt as hell, so is the next-in-line, therefore we should keep my corrupt guy and all their cronies immune to any accountability and impervious to the democratic process because that suits my fancy".
But this line of reasoning only further worsens Brazil's corruption problem.
Between spending money on a gimmick mobile, and spend money on a USB charger to keep using your everyday smartphone, the path of least resistance always wins.
Particularly when the USB charger costs a fraction of what the gimmick phone is sold for.
You're assuming that supplying 5v to a cellphone through a 5v USB charger is something that damages the phone.
You've brushed over the fact that the article mentions deceitful marketing practices that involves product descriptions specifically crafter to paint a fictitious idea of what the product's true capabilities are while being intentionally vague "so that nothing that they’ve said is strictly lying per se".
Furthermore, in spite of all the marketing effort, the company only managed to move 6k units worldwide.
This is a clear telltale sign that the product clearly doesn't serve its purposes, and its sales are attained mostly due to goodwill from people who fall into the green energy scam.
But the normal workings of a democratic process is suddenly somehow a "grievous blow" because it's their corrupt official being caught in the dragnet.
Go figure.
No wonder Brazil is such a mess.
There are already plenty of cell phone chargers in the market that take standard batteries.
I don't want to sound like I'm advertising any product, but I've purchased a cheap chinese cell phone charger that takes AA batteries. It cost me just $1 out of ebay. I actually purchased it on a gamble, expecting it to be awful, but it actually works very well. It's a very simple gadget that uses standard AA batteries connected in series to ramp up the voltage from around 1.5v to a tad above 5V, which is then used to supply energy to a standard 5V USB charger. Depending on the batteries used, a 4-pack of fresh AA batteries provide around 1800mAh of juice.
I've planned on purchasing another just to rig it to take C or D batteries, which provide the same voltage but hold a lot more charge, but honestly the AA pack works very well as it is.