AMDGPU In Linux 4.10 To Have Better Power Management, New VM Manager

[starshipeleven]

This thread is full of USA-centric trolls who think and talk like if the world were bound to USA, not only because of the topic “discussed”, but also because of the way they are “discussed” and “thought”, and also because of these so USA-specific phobias, neurosis, obsessions and bias involved. It looks so ridiculous. Open your eyes, you're not alone. There is people who live behind the ridiculous limits of your so-small horizon.

This rant isn't generic enough, people might think you read some posts. Please make it more generic.

[grndzro]

One of the most ridiculous concepts Ive ever heard of is powerconsumption on C/GPU's.

Do you want a powerful computer or worry about the insignificant difference that you're not doing for the environment?

You know that man-made global warming is a religion, right?

Some people want a lower power bill.

I'v been to the north pole and it took 3 days for my photogrey glasses to turn clear again. There is a hole in the ozone up there. Take it as first hand knowledge.

[chithanh]

You know that man-made global warming is a religion, right?

Congratulations! With this submission, you're the winner of "Trollpost of the week" award.

Unfortunately this is very common in the US, which is the home to major anti-intellectual groups such as

Creationism
Anthropogenic global warming denialism
Vaccination criticism
Fat acceptance

They all have in common that they propose some vast conspiracy by academia to keep the truth hidden. Sometimes they come with dangerous pseudo-scientific quackery (like Health At Every Size).

[illwieckz]

This rant isn't generic enough, people might think you read some posts. Please make it more generic.

Believing the problem is about genericity or believing there is a need for genericity reveals how many assumptions are unconsciously made, the same way people jump from “is global warming a religion?” to some puppet of a quaint local politic reality show.

[starshipeleven]

Believing the problem is about genericity or believing there is a need for genericity reveals how many assumptions are unconsciously made,

My post was a funnier way to say "please be more specific", so your troll atttempt here is failing.

the same way people jump from “is global warming a religion?” to some puppet of a quaint local politic reality show.

As a rule, most people disbelieving so hard global warming are from USA. So are the Creationists, Flat-earthers, and many other types of retards.

Most other places do have idiots too but not in a so organized form with banner and all.

[illwieckz]

My post was a funnier way to say "please be more specific", so your troll attempt here is failing.

That's why you verified my statement, it was the best confirmation I could wait. Since your post is part of the problem, you can re-read my words with your post in mind when I talk about “the problem”.

As a rule, most people disbelieving so hard global warming are from USA. So are the Creationists, Flat-earthers, and many other types of retards.

• The fourth problem is to made it a rule.
• The third problem is to think it's about believers and denialists.
• The second problem is to think “disbelieving” (see 3rd) global warming is only a matter of retarded people.
• The first problem is the way “global warming” is thought. As an example I will just study the “global warming” glossary. Not every language say “global warming” and the “global” concept is USA-centric :

DE: “erderwärmung” → earth warming
FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming
FR: “réchauffement climatique” → climatic warming

Other languages that have literal “global warming” equivalents just translated them from north american english words, that's why I talk about “USA-centric trolls” and not “USA-citizen trolls”, since many people over the world narrowed their mind to the simplistic schemas from USA when it's about modern debates. I really don't know who live in USA or not in this thread (and I don't care), but the USA mindset is everywhere.

• As a first example, see how some language use a noun and others use an adjective before “warming”, it means a lot of things about how things are thought.
• As a second example, see how people do not globalize the problem, but narrow it to climate or earth for example. It's the first things to do in a scientific attempt : narrowing the problem. Globalization is easy for the mind, but can't lead to a correct rational debate. So these people, even the most retarded ones, use words that prevent simplistic generalization from the start, because the language, which is the ground of the debate, is not simplistic.
• As a third example, I will study just one word to qualify the people. For this example I will take the French language. There is no “global warming denialists” in this language, there is “climatosceptiques”, which means “climatological skepticals”, as you see, it's not about disbelievers or denialists, it's about skepticals, and being skeptical is not equivalent with disbelieving. Skepticism is a philosophical systemic approach to question the knowledge. So, it's not about believers or denialists, it's about questioning knowledge.

NB: And before some USA-people makes the assumption that reducing a debate to a believers versus denialists opposition sounds very religious, I say that reducing a debate to a believers versus denialists opposition is not a religious mechanism, it's a communitarian irrational sectarian mechanism, i.e. the very typical and primitive way to experience the religious phenomenon, which is typical to USA, the country of the thousands of sects growing up like if there were no-one people before them who have answered their own questions since centuries in universities (sometime since milleniums by philosophers and thinkers) or at least studied their problems before and narrowed the problems to exclude stupid and simplistic stuff, therefore creationists, flat-earthers etc. It's very typical from people who live in a country they haven't inherited from their ancestors, like if they were living the beginning of the humanity, the beginning of the world, the beginning of the history, and the origin of a spread, which are a wrong assumptions. The glossary itself reveals how the ones who created this “global warming” wording do not know what is history, knowledge inheritance, and philosophical traditions, things that give the appropriate tools to not redo the errors that has already proven to be errors, and to exclude foolishness from the start. The “global warming” debate was not rational from the start because the glossary used for the debate was not.

[starshipeleven]

That's why you verified my statement, it was the best confirmation I could wait. Since your post is part of the problem, you can re-read my words with your post in mind when I talk about “the problem”.

You can re-read my answers where I said that it is generic garbage and that if you want to be understood you need to be more specific.

The fourth problem is to made it a rule.

It's a rule because it is a fact. People outside USA that claim this bullshit are few and far in between.

The third problem is to think it's about believers and denialists.

None talked about believers, we are talking about people not accepting facts, and that's denial.

The second problem is to think “disbelieving” (see 3rd) global warming is only a matter of retarded people.

Lack of acceptance of proven facts is stupidity.

The first problem is the way “global warming” is thought. As an example I will just study the “global warming” glossary. Not every language say “global warming” and the “global” concept is USA-centric :[/LIST]

DE: “erderwärmung” → earth warming
FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming
FR: “réchauffement climatique” → climatic warming

Earth = global
climatic (without specifying a local place) = also global

So they are all synonims.

The actual name of the phenomenon is "climate change", btw, so they are all wrong.

Other languages that have literal “global warming” equivalents just translated them from north american english words, that's why I talk about “USA-centric trolls” and not “USA-citizen trolls”,

That's because the concept of the phenomenon came from there, and most people weren't arsed enough to come up with a better name for it.

You can do the same with other words like say "computer". Apart from a few languages like say French, "computer" is used.

since many people over the world narrowed their mind to the simplistic schemas from USA when it's about modern debates.

No we are just using the right words for the language we are discussing in.

people do not globalize the problem, but narrow it to climate or earth for example.

Yeah, because Earth isn't the name of the whole planet (which means it is a synonim of "global"), and "climate" without specific modifiers to link it to some local place is also applied to the whole planet's climate (again similar meaning of "global").

There is no “global warming denialists” in this language, there is “climatosceptiques”, which means “climatological skepticals”,

How they choose to call the idiots that don't accept basic proven facts is irrelevant, they remain idiots.

I don't get how by analyzing linguistics you can get anywhere.
Linguistics is arbitrary as fuck and based on irrational decisions of the masses.

It's very typical from people who live in a country they haven't inherited from their ancestors,

And here you show you're an idiot that does not know basic sociology, and USA history.

USA was colonized mostly by people that were rejected from other nations, misfits, cultists and whatever. Their culture was influenced by this, and their very laws protect stupid retarded silly cults, and some modern movements like Pastafarians are exploiting this for fun factor.

The “global warming” debate was not rational from the start because the glossary used for the debate was not.

Listen, if you use English you cannot use different words than that. I cannot start writing shit in Italian or Spanish or French or even chinese (Mandarin) just because they write it in a different way and I think it's better.

[starshipeleven]

Man made climate change is a religion. Just see world temp in the beginning of 2000 when factories in China emissions were greatest.

climate change is a bit more complex thing than just "average temperatures rise". It's called CLIMATE change, not TEMPERATURE change. Also "Global Warming" is a very dumbed-down and incorrect naming.

[Tomin]

I'm kind of surprised that someone otherwise smart person (maybe, debatable) can think that this climate change isn't a real issue, but yeah there are such people in the world. I wish they would look how much glaciers on poles has shrunk and understood that it's too fast to be caused by natural climate change. Everyone should be aware that number of extreme weather conditions will increase when climate changes (sometimes I feel like that has already happened when I hear news about them, but maybe not quite yet). I'd also be hard to do much about this global warming, if USA (as a country) doesn't do anything to limit their emissions. I wish we (humans, as a species) won't die because we were stupid and didn't see the bigger picture. Then again, if we fail to see it, maybe we should go to extinction.

FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming

Erm. We also use "ilmastonmuutos" which is literally climate change, but yes the event that has been happening the last few decades (or whatever) and is caused by human is "ilmaston lämpeneminen".

[starshipeleven]

I wish we (humans, as a species) won't die because we were stupid and didn't see the bigger picture. Then again, if we fail to see it, maybe we should go to extinction.

Extinction is wildly unlikely as the phenomenon is VERY slow, slowing down technological progress for a few centuries while some serious shit is happening and there are wars or other things wasting resources is a possibility, that many people in the poorer countries hit by these things will be left on their own devices (to die) and told to fuck off (or exploited for profit, see Monsanto) is certain.

A positive aspect is that there will be better reasons for exocolonization in a mid-term future, which is a good thing in itself to avoid more serious issues like asteroid impacts, more common pollution/deforestation/whatever fucking up ecosystems for good, and wars.
(for exocolonization I mean serious space stations or at most the Moon, not Mars or any other planet, ignoring for a moment that Mars is a distant radioactive desert whose pathetic atmosphere is good only for pissing off landing craft and throwing sand on your stuff on the surface, and that other planets in the solar system manage to be much worse than that, planets in general would have the same issues we have with Earth now).

All in all, I wouldn't worry too much, if you are in a First/Second World country the biggest issues come from economical recession and immigrant influx, neither is directly linked to climate change.