Just about everything Computer Overclockers say. I just don't see any significant advantages for all the mucking around.
I can only think they must be a part of the "I want, I want, I want more and I want it now" generation.
No, that generation is just complaining CPUs aren't faster already. The overclockers are actually doing something about it - you might call it a hobby, like that 'electronics' thing many of us here do in our spare time.
Most overclockers do it for the thrill. I have a mild OC on my PC, (4.2GHz), and I know some people who push their computers up to 5+ for kicks, but mostly we just do it for fun.
Yeah, quite a bit of it is just for fun.
My main workstation is a core2 Q6600 which is running at 3.2Ghz (stock freq is 2.4ghz) The extra 800mhz does make it noticeable faster doing cpu intensive tasks.
But as you say, you have to look for the difference, it doesn't jump out at you.
What did make me grin at the time was looking at the price of the official 3.2ghz version of my chip. It was 5x the price!
It was a bit different back in the days of old FPS games like Doom/Quake where CPU's were being pushed to the max with the latest games (before we had 3D gfx cards).
Even a small overclock of say 15% could increase your frame rate from 18 to 25fps which was a massive difference in playability, especially for online play.
A lot of manufacturers sponsor overclocking and related events as a way to differentiate themselves from the others in their industry, or to show how solid their products are - i mean "look at this card, with just some liquid nitrogen and a bit more juice it can run at 2x the speed, it's designed and manufactured to stand up to the toughest standards!"
Then there is the overclocking to get better value for money, or "more for less", buy a cheap chip or a cheap card, give it a bit more juice and run it at a higher clock speed and get the same performance at a model that costs 4x as much? why not?
Then there are the people who just it for the fun/the challenge - a true hobby.
Sometimes, the first and the last reason cross over, in the case of things like this;
http://www.techpowerup.com/202759/evga-and-k-ngp-n-break-new-world-record-with-first-true-2ghz-on-gtx-780-ti.html (you might have seen the second name mentioned in the article on the forum before, with his keithly repairs or his diy calibrator project or much more - certainly a very different person to the kind of person that What_NZ mentions)
More arm based computers are sold ever 3 months than x86 PCS have ever been made.
That's like comparing apples to oranges.
Is it though? I can't walk down the street and avoid seeing people using their ARM computers to send and receive email, browse the web, process images, etc. These are programmable computers which in many cases are running multi-user multi-tasking operating systems with all the usual abstractions: file systems, virtual memory, POSIX interface, etc.
Just about everything Computer Overclockers say. I just don't see any significant advantages for all the mucking around.
I can only think they must be a part of the "I want, I want, I want more and I want it now" generation.
for some of us, it increases platform longevity. I have an i7 920 overclocked from 2.66GHz to 4.2GHz bought in 2009 as my main desktop. 5 years later, it's starting to show its age and forcing me to upgrade. that ~57% overclock did increase performance significantly for me and is probably the sole reason I can live with it 5 years later.
I specifically remember this one from a discussion about the alleged harmful effects of wi-fi radiation. Somebody (whose name I forget, so for the sake of argument I'll go with "the Idiot") claimed that a neighbour's wi-fi was stopping him sleeping, giving him headaches or such - and that nothing would ever convince him otherwise.
The thing is, the WiFi router does stop him sleeping. Although it's not the WiFi signal that's doing it, you can secretly switch if off it's still be a problem 
Same way homeopathy can actually work.
It gets worse, if he did find out the WiFi was actually off the neighbour would probably claim 'long lasting effects'
"Did you ever tried with homeopathy?" 
In the same way homeopathic remedies only have the memories of active ingredients transferred to the water, homeopaths don't have brains, only brain water with memories of intelligence....
I wonder how effective such subjects were
It's probably a question of "are" and not "were". These subjects are still part of the education of the political elite. You'll probably not have to look to far to see evidence of this in your country.
the "upper classes" in the main,were not a great repository of logical thought.
Bertrand Russel, one of the great names in mathematical logic, was the son of a viscount. Ada Lovelace,
the world's first computer programmer, was the daughter of a Baron. That's just off the top of my head, and restricting myself to to the upper classes. If I were to include the middle classes then I would be here all day swinging like a pendulum between wikipedia and the draft of this reply. The working classes don't get going it seems until after the first world war.
It all depends upon what you are searching for.
A bit of Googling,also brings up these delights:-
Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats
John Amery,
Lord Lucan
Kim Philby
William Forbes-Sempill
None of these gentlemen seemed to apply much logic,ethics,or even plain commonsense to their life decisions.
Then there were some who were just plain loony,such as:-
William John Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland,though he doesn't really count,as he was home-schooled.
More arm based computers are sold ever 3 months than x86 PCS have ever been made.
That's like comparing apples to oranges.
Is it though? I can't walk down the street and avoid seeing people using their ARM computers to send and receive email, browse the web, process images, etc. These are programmable computers which in many cases are running multi-user multi-tasking operating systems with all the usual abstractions: file systems, virtual memory, POSIX interface, etc.
I think it is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they are both computers of a fashion. As are apples and oranges both fruit. Similar in many respects but not the same and not interchangable unless you are just hungry.
A computer is a computer, the definition does not contain any dimensions. Your washing machine probably has a more powerful computer than the one that put people on the moon.
the "upper classes" in the main,were not a great repository of logical thought.
Bertrand Russel, one of the great names in mathematical logic, was the son of a viscount. Ada Lovelace,
the world's first computer programmer, was the daughter of a Baron. That's just off the top of my head, and restricting myself to to the upper classes. If I were to include the middle classes then I would be here all day swinging like a pendulum between wikipedia and the draft of this reply. The working classes don't get going it seems until after the first world war.
It all depends upon what you are searching for.
A bit of Googling,also brings up these delights:-
Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats
John Amery,
Lord Lucan
Kim Philby
William Forbes-Sempill
None of these gentlemen seemed to apply much logic, ...
Our definitions of logic seem to differ. Logic is concerned with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. You don't know how these people reasoned; you know only of their actions. Their reasoning may very well have been sound; they may have been quite logical thinkers.
... ethics,or even plain commonsense to their life decisions.
Ethics and common sense have nothing to do with logic which was the attribute you mentioned in your claim about the upper classes.
Then there were some who were just plain loony,such as:-
William John Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland,though he doesn't really count,as he was home-schooled.
I think mental health is something we shouldn't confuse with logic either.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the upper classes and I say this as someone who was raised in a constitutional monarchy in a background of first world poverty. The simple fact of the matter is that the upper classes have always had access to first rate education.
A computer is a computer, the definition does not contain any dimensions.
Then the discussion can get quite wildly:
any human being is a computer - check out the origin of "computer" the word;
any opamp is a computer - it calculates the output based on inputs;
any transistor / mosfet is a computer - the output is "calculated" or determined by input;
any resistor is a computer - it computes the linear multiples of voltage / current input;
any capacitor is a computer - it computes the first order derivative;
any inductor is a computer - it too computes the first order derivative;
...
Beat any of that with your ARM computers,
the "upper classes" in the main,were not a great repository of logical thought.
Bertrand Russel, one of the great names in mathematical logic, was the son of a viscount. Ada Lovelace,
the world's first computer programmer, was the daughter of a Baron. That's just off the top of my head, and restricting myself to to the upper classes. If I were to include the middle classes then I would be here all day swinging like a pendulum between wikipedia and the draft of this reply. The working classes don't get going it seems until after the first world war.
It all depends upon what you are searching for.
A bit of Googling,also brings up these delights:-
Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats
John Amery,
Lord Lucan
Kim Philby
William Forbes-Sempill
None of these gentlemen seemed to apply much logic, ...
Our definitions of logic seem to differ. Logic is concerned with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. You don't know how these people reasoned; you know only of their actions. Their reasoning may very well have been sound; they may have been quite logical thinkers.
... ethics,or even plain commonsense to their life decisions.
Ethics and common sense have nothing to do with logic which was the attribute you mentioned in your claim about the upper classes.
Then there were some who were just plain loony,such as:-
William John Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland,though he doesn't really count,as he was home-schooled.
I think mental health is something we shouldn't confuse with logic either.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the upper classes and I say this as someone who was raised in a constitutional monarchy in a background of first world poverty. The simple fact of the matter is that the upper classes have always had access to first rate education.
Very valid point,although logical thinking doesn't seem to fit with the outcomes in these gentlemen's lives..
"You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the upper classes"Is that a logically derived conclusion,or is it just a hunch?
"The simple fact of the matter is that the upper classes have always had access to first rate education."" Access to education + presence of students =absorption of that education"doesn't look like a valid logical statement,although it may be highly probable
Very valid point,although logical thinking doesn't seem to fit with the outcomes in these gentlemen's lives..
Hmmmm. To quote Simon:
Any rational decision may be viewed as a conclusion reached from certain premises... The behaviour of a rational person can be controlled, therefore, if the value and factual premises upon which he bases his decisions are specified for him.
We just don't know what their value and factual premises were. Plenty of right thinking individuals have accepted terrible actions performed in their name because propaganda specified their value and factual premises.
"You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the upper classes"
Is that a logically derived conclusion,or is it just a hunch?
A hunch, now am I wrong
Of course I'm reading my own prejudices into your words. I'm not here to give you grief. I apologise if I have misread and been harsh.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the upper classes have always had access to first rate education."
" Access to education + presence of students =absorption of that education"doesn't look like a valid logical statement,although it may be highly probable
My experience seems to show that enough of them are listening, learning, and applying. The dumbing down of educational standards for the children of the general populace makes it look like not much will change either.
the upper classes have always had access to first rate education.
Spot on. Education is the most powerful equalizer one can find.
That's precisely why some elitists / politicians have so effectively en-slaved a large portion of our society in perpetuity by working with the teachers' unions to deprive poor kids of a first rate education they so deserve.
Simple matter of fact: those who possess wealth, without having to produce the sheer labor necessary for day-to-day survival, can spend their days in tasks other than labor.
The poor classes are -- or intuitively, should be -- defined by their ability (physical and financial) to partake of pursuits other than labor.
Poverty has been falling steadily throughout history, and it should be no surprise, then, that a vast number of people are now able to spend their time in such activities -- such is the vastness of the internet, for only one example.
That doesn't mean that everyone is an instant genius. There is certainly more availability to those predisposed to be intelligent. But also the equal availability of gross and simple activities (look at how much of the internet is cat pictures and porn..). Throughout history, things probably haven't changed as much intellectually as economically; those in high places are generally there for a reason, and examples of retardation and inbreeding are probably more incidental than typical. Like it or not, intelligence and wealth both tend to run in the family, even if they are somewhat loosely coupled.
Tim
Simple matter of fact: those who possess wealth, without having to produce the sheer labor necessary for day-to-day survival, can spend their days in tasks other than labor.
The poor classes are -- or intuitively, should be -- defined by their ability (physical and financial) to partake of pursuits other than labor.
Poverty has been falling steadily throughout history, and it should be no surprise, then, that a vast number of people are now able to spend their time in such activities -- such is the vastness of the internet, for only one example.
That doesn't mean that everyone is an instant genius. There is certainly more availability to those predisposed to be intelligent. But also the equal availability of gross and simple activities (look at how much of the internet is cat pictures and porn..). Throughout history, things probably haven't changed as much intellectually as economically; those in high places are generally there for a reason, and examples of retardation and inbreeding are probably more incidental than typical. Like it or not, intelligence and wealth both tend to run in the family, even if they are somewhat loosely coupled.
I remember running into a problem and having to wait till next week to go to the library to search for hours in books to try to find the answer. Now, that problem is solved in 5 minutes on Google, with an option of Text, Graphic, or Video presentation of the answer. However, all of this vast knowledge is irrelevant, if I choose to fill my head with the latest TV program, or gossip on Facebook, or follow the latest "celebrity", instead of pursuing knowledge. The sad thing is that many people are actually getting dumber, while knowledge is in a form that is the easiest, since the beginning of time, to both find and digest. They are learning many things, just on topics that don't matter for any reason.
The sad thing is that many people are actually getting dumber, while knowledge is in a form that is the easiest, since the beginning of time, to both find and digest.
Is that why income inequality is getting worse, justifiably so? Tell Piketty that.
However, all of this vast knowledge is irrelevant, if I choose to fill my head with the latest TV program, or gossip on Facebook, or follow the latest "celebrity", instead of pursuing knowledge.
While the Internet is widely hailed as what it is: a vast reserve of worldwide knowledge -- the practical truth is, precisely because of that vastness, it is a desert. The only way to make sense of it is to stick to your own personal corner of the web (say, electronics forums... amirite?). As much as the Internet facilitates sharing and empathy, it also serves selfishness and violence. Arguably, our present activities would be considered one of those positive interactions, while other circles (take one of, or some of?, the recent U.S. shootings for instance) are examples of negative interaction.
Tim
Well, I don't mean to imply that I'm above it all, but...
Before you shake your head at how many folks are squandering the vast opportunity made accessible to them through education and the Internet, consider also that right now there are several pages of commiserating over how people say things based on their flawed understanding of... whatever subject happens to flare up our own pet peeve.
So. Is
this what enlightened people do with immediate access to a significant portion of mankind's combined knowledge and experience?
Complain about misconceptions regarding electromagnetic principles, or whether God exists? Hey, I suppose even the enlightened are entitled to a little mental down-time.
I don't know if many people are getting 'dumber' per se as a result of the internet. Those who would rather spend their time using the internet for trashy pursuits would probably be doing that in other ways without the internet, while those who would rather be spending their time at the library are now using the internet. It has also been a huge gift to people unable to physically visit libraries. I guess it could be argued that internet use can distract or split our attention and make it more shallow.
Many years ago,various luminaries spent a lot of time bewailing the lost opportunity to use Television for Education.
My answer to that was always: "If I want to be educated,I'll go to Night School!"
I can't use that one for the Internet,as "Night schools" teaching "hard" subjects are virtually extinct,because they cost money to run,which in a mean-spirited age,is not available.
In the past,kids who didn't take full advantage of the conventional Higher Education system for various reasons,could learn complex subjects after work,in a formal classroom situation.
Learning in a non-classroom situation,such as the Internet,or Correspondence is a lot harder,without the instant feedback of a classroom.
"As a Christian... blah blah"
As if believing in some laughably demonstrably false ancient fairytale based upon the accidental location of your birth country gives you some form of extra credibility in an argument...
So pack up and leave for a country that doesn't have a cross on it's flag and stop speaking English, you know, a language from a country with a giant cross on its flag...
Come on, prove that "laughably demonstrably false ancient fairytale" is really false... You can even make one of your little videos about it...
One way I have heard of people proving the falsehoods written in the Bible is to try to fit pairs of all the animals in the world into a theoretical ship built to Noahs Ark dimensions.
Actually my big assumption here is that Noahs Ark is in the Bible. I haven't read that book.
If you read a bit into history you'll find that religion is often used to control the common people and keep them as uneducated as possible.
If you read a bit into history you'll find that religion is often used to control the common people and keep them as uneducated as possible.
Not unlike government, really.
When a thread turns to religion, it's time to lock it.
