Interesting blog entry..(a bit long)

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
I usually don't read any of this stuff, as I really don't care to read an entry full of stuff like what a person ate or where they went today..but I found this to be a bit more meaningful than others I've read. It's a bit extreme at times, but it kind of reminded me of some of the posts here.

I don?t get annoyed very easily...well okay, the slightest and dumbest of all things tend to set me off, but I usually am able to get over it quickly.

However, what constantly annoys me is the people out there with the most miniscule of ?problems?, and think they know half of what suffering is. Let me save you all a little drama, you?re not suffering. The fact that you are reading this right now means that you have access to a computer, with the internet nonetheless, and given that, I can only conclude that you are also well sheltered, fully clothed, and fed everyday. The exceptions of course go to my fan club currently stranded on a desert island, but that?s beside the point.

The point is, whatever situation you?re in, however crumbled you think your life may be, there are billions of people on this very earth, who would absolutely kill to be in your position. Children who eat three bites of ?food? everyday, which is often a huge stretch to call it that, working 16 hours a day, seven days a week for $0.02 an hour, and who have their parents standing by knowing that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better this cause. That, is suffering. Suffering is growing up with no hope in your life, never having the possibility of the hell that you call life getting any better, and knowing that all your future holds for you is the ability to witness another generation going through all that you did. Suffering is when the high point of your week is being able to use actual toilet paper, instead of dried up leaves.

You don't even have to go that far actually to find people that are having it worse than you. Try to have those people sympathize with you.

I honestly cannot say I?ve ever suffered, either through my own definition presented above, or through any other definition really. If I ever thought I did, I would like to go back in time to that point and slap myself in the face, because I certainly did not, and I would be a selfish prick to think that I did. I hope to never have this myth that I am suffering, so long as I am eating and have a place that I can call home. I will not consider myself suffering if I ever fail a midterm, lose a job, or trash my car?though that may be on the borderline of things.

To many people out there, your life is good. To even more, you're living a life of royalty, no matter how you're living. You are not suffering. If you ever believe you are, I want you travel the world, and look a little African boy in the eye and tell him you?re not happy with your life. If you truly think you can, and are still eating on a daily basis, and are not strutting around completely naked everywhere you go, may you...(insert hellish idea here).

Suffering is indeed relative, but it should not only be compared to one?s own life and past, but rather the life of other people as well. Lives of fellow human beings, who certainly did not choose their way of life, or even had any control over it. Sure, the ?real world? may get hard at times, even grueling or arduous--but you can always be sure there?s going to be billions upon billions of people out there who would switch places with you in a heartbeat.
 

human2k

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
3,563
0
0
There are no wrinkles in the memory management.
To change the X86 would cost money and I'm sure
no one would put Billions into anything new at this
point in time. You would have to get away from anything
X86.

What AMD could do is have the Chipset's refined to run
faster. This would be like Intels new Chipset that use PAL.
However, there is a cost for doing these tweaks and it
might look good in Sandra, but the games might suffer.
The games would hurt because they are low level coded
to use AMD and Intel tricks. To change how the memory
is used would call on M$ to spend money in an area I'm
sure they don't fell is needed. Then to have every program
that runs 32 and 64bit would need to be patched to even
run.

So like they said, "it's all about money."

As an X86 system things are running like they should in 32bit or 64bit.
It's all about the BUFFER in a PC X86 system. You got cache on the
HD's, CPU's, Videocards and motherboards ect.. Adding more cache
and ram here and there lets the system run smooth and hitch free.
Just because AMD and M$ could add a few tweeks in one spot does
not mean the system will run any better because it's the same information
that will get processed by the CPU in the end. And this is why the CPU has
cache built on it because the RAM is slow. But you need the ram because it's
the second best buffer. The 3rd buffer is the Harddrive and we all know at that
point it's SLOW CRUCH TIME!

64bit is nice and all but I'd rather have more built on cpu cache.
Just think of an AMD XP with 1Gb of L1/L2 cache. I guess you wouldn't
even need ram then would ya?
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Originally posted by: human2k
There are no wrinkles in the memory management....
I guess you wouldn't even need ram then would ya?

In other words your cat's breath smells like cat food?