Computer Forum Chat Thread

[Cyanotical]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rs_Report.html

i suspect this will be more targeted at the mobile market, however, if this is the case, enthusiasts will drop intel like a bad habit and go straight to AMD, even at a performance hit

whats worse is that computer enthusiasts in general carry grudges, so something like that happening and intel would lose that market permanently across the board
which is bad for them, as much as they don't want to admit it, first adopters and enthusiasts pay the bills around there

[Naididae]

Yeah, I think it makes more sense for laptops and mobiles, where they are trying to build more Market. It's just a rumour, so we'll have time to panic later =p

[Asera]

If we had true free market a big partition of world population would just die. I'm not saying that's the worse thing to happen per se but are you willing to give a death sentence to millions of people who can't / aren't capable of caring for themselves?

I guaranteed that big partition of the world population only has the illusion that they aren't capable of caring for themselves. It's a side effect of being handed everything for nothing at everyone's expense.

thats a pretty derp statement, your taxes essentially pay for your country to remain a country, they pay for roads, schools, police, firefighters, infrastructure, military defense, etc

they are a necessary part of any country

Let's pretend I said something to challenge this statement, and continue talking computer things because computer thread is about computers.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rs_Report.html

Part of me wants to say this is probably a step in the right direction to reduce costs and form factor sizes. Another part of me fears budget enthusiast systems will go the way of the dinosaur.

[Drunkenvalley]

I guaranteed that big partition of the world population only has the illusion that they aren't capable of caring for themselves. It's a side effect of being handed everything for nothing at everyone's expense.

What exactly do you consider "caring for themselves"? Because I am of the impression you're setting a stupid low bar here.

[Deleted]

alright who else feels like they lost some brain cells in that intel to amd thread?

[DeltrusDisc]

Taxation when it goes to things that are good (socialized healthcare etc) IS GLOOOOOORIOUS.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 07:32 PM ----------

alright who else feels like they lost some brain cells in that intel to amd thread?

Careful now, this may be fun-stuff but there's still rules.

[DeltrusDisc]

<snip>

Yes, I suggest you cut this post and the topic, but if you really need to talk about it, take it to PMs. :P

[Cusco]

I guaranteed that big partition of the world population only has the illusion that they aren't capable of caring for themselves. It's a side effect of being handed everything for nothing at everyone's expense.

Absolutely everyone I know or have ever met who lives on some kind of benefit, be it due to unemployment or illness, have wished more than anything to get well, in the case of the sick, then get a job and start giving back to society. They've all shown that they do not enjoy living on other peoples money, rather the contrary. It's not likely that people with such a strong wish to get a job and give back, would also be fooled by a feeling that they're worse off than they are. It's contradictory. So I highly doubt what you've just written is true, I think it's nothing more than a prejudice.

[BicycleMafioso]

I agree with Cusco there. People don't want to be unemployed. They don't want too tell people that. They don't want to live with that hanging over themselves. However, just because they are willing to work doesn't mean. people can and will find work.

Everyone is eager to get out there and find self worth. That is well rooted in at least our society.

Complete bull argument imo.

[Drunkenvalley]

Etc

I wish I could throw upvotes at this post until it drowned. Well put, Cusco.

[DeltrusDisc]

I wish I could jump on the Cusco-loving-bandwagon too!

Oh wait I just did.

....

[Ghâzh]

I agree with Cusco there. People don't want to be unemployed. They don't want too tell people that. They don't want to live with that hanging over themselves. However, just because they are willing to work doesn't mean. people can and will find work.

Everyone is eager to get out there and find self worth. That is well rooted in at least our society.

Complete bull argument imo.

Maybe you haven't met that many long time unemployed people or young adults that have lived their whole life on the society's expense. There's those individuals that really have no intention of getting a job, no intention of doing any work for their lives, have extremely bad attitude and the most of all, are just ungrateful towards the help they get from the society.

It's just properly naive to think that "Everyone is eager to get out there and find self worth". And need I begin with the people who are incapable of any real work, do drugs or the incidents leading and starting from either of the two?

Edit; I realized shortly after posting that the described behavior could be national and can and partly is due to the incredibly "welfare" unemployment support we have here. Basically there are people in a position where they get paid the same or more doing nothing than getting an actual job. At least it doesn't encourage you to be active do you think?

[Drunkenvalley]

Ghâzh, your entire first paragraph is questionable. "There's those individuals"? What sort of measure is that? For all I know, that's a mass equal to how many win the freaking lottery. Of course they'll exist. So what? Are you trying to tell me we should slash benefits for everyone because some people are cunts?

[Ghâzh]

Well there isn't statistics pointing to either direction but in my opinion there's quite a lot (not majority but still enough to be considered) of those people. All I'm trying to tell you is you're really naive if you think that everyone wants to get a job and improve their situation. Singling out one definite solution for the problem is really hard as the problem is so national specific.

If you think back 50-60 years you'll notice that before the time of this overly far taken social support there wasn't so many freeloaders, not to the same extent as today at least. When you start carrying people trough the life, you give them an option not to work and leech on other's money. That just basically makes people passive and in long term hurts the society as a whole.

[Drunkenvalley]

there wasn't so many freeloaders,

According to who? And remember today's "freeloaders" as you call them would probably be reduced to freaking hobos back then. -.-

I think you're throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. What I know is that it's not an option far as I'm concerned to remove it. If you were to tell me they should remove it I'd flat out call you a Quisling.

[Ghâzh]

Because it was just flat out impossible to live like that back then. Sure there were more homeless people but most of those who I would today call freeloaders just manned up and did something to improve their situation. I'm not calling it perfect as there was no support for those who actually needed it like disabled or old people. You were forced to keep closer relations with your family or friends and create a small society of your own to support each other.

What I know is that it's not an option far as I'm concerned to remove it. If you were to tell me they should remove it I'd flat out call you a Quisling.

Nor did I ever say or will say anything like that. Like I said, replying to Asera's comment about all taxing being robbery, some people would just die if you suddenly removed the social support. I'm not making that decision even as a concept even though it could be the best for the human race and our future.

However I will say that I don't think those currently misusing the system are flawed per se. The system made them like that and only by changing something within could we improve it. There is different structural changes that could be made and really going in to details is impossible, like I said, it's very national specific what's the core problem. It all depends on your current social support system, wages, the wealth of your country and so on.

[icedwarrior]

...isn't this the computer forum chat thread? What happened to talking about computers? Enough of this talk!

[noteworthynerd]

...isn't this the computer forum chat thread? What happened to talking about computers? Enough of this talk!

Yes and no. It is meant to keep the off-topic stuff out of threads in the Computer Forum. That being the case, it is doing a fine job.

We might be geeks, but we only talk about computers 95% of the time.

Maybe you haven't met that many long time unemployed people or young adults that have lived their whole life on the society's expense. There's those individuals that really have no intention of getting a job, no intention of doing any work for their lives, have extremely bad attitude and the most of all, are just ungrateful towards the help they get from the society.

I can attest to this. I've lived in a low income part of south eastern Ohio my entire life, and worked at my father's grocery store for seven years. I can say with utmost certainty that there are individuals who have absolutely no intention of ever working, who are more than happy to live on government assistance their entire lives. And the worst thing about them is: they act as if they are entitled to that assistance, even though they've done nothing to deserve it.

Please don't get me wrong, I'll all for assisting those who are down on their luck (disabled people, people who were laid off, veterans, the elderly, etc), but I'm absolutely against completely supporting people who are able but unwilling to work.

[Cusco]

This leads us to one of the tragic things about politics: there have been thousands of debates like this the past, I don't know, 100 years, but what neither side seems to understand is that everyone wants more or less the same thing. Us socialists are all for making it as difficult as possible for freeloaders, we don't like them either. We just want to take care of those who truly are worse off, not those who choose to be, and I do think most of us do want to help those people, those who really do need it. It's just that us socialists think it's worth it to have some freeloaders until we fix the loopholes, whilst other people would rather wait spending money until everything is loophole-free, so that just those who need help, get help.

I understand and fully agree to the argument that we have to be careful about to whom we give money, because if we spend an unnecessarily large sum, to people who don't need it, then that hasn't really solved anything. We've just created new problems. There will always be idiots who want to throw a lot of money around without paying much attention to who gets it, just like there will always be heartless bastards who think that everyone who's worse off deserves living on the street, but it's vital to understand that the idiots are just as misrepresentative for socialists, as the bastards are for liberalists.

I might be wrong, but at least that's my experience.

[Drunkenvalley]

Personally, I'm really behind Cusco on this. I've got to tell Ghazh in particular though that I don't think any that he/she calls "freeloaders" would "man up" back then more than they would now. They'd just figure out a different way to leech.

I have trouble believing the 'mass' has really changed the way you want to push it. What I consider more likely is that these people just turned into hobos back then, or leeched off family, friends and partners that they might have had.