nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
my overclocked 2 cents;)
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
javajedi
Oct 11, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
SandboxGeneral
Mar 14, 06:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was watching ABC World News with Diane Sawyer this evening and she said there have been no reports of looting since the earthquake. She went on to say that the total population is about half that of the US, squeezed into an area the size of Montana.
If it's true that there has been no looting, I think that says a lot for the Japanese people. That's a sign of a very respectable and community oriented civilization.
I lived in Japan for one year while serving in the US Marines, and I enjoyed every minute of my stay there. I do hope that someday I can make a return visit.
Back to the bit about looting, I feel ashamed and embarrassed of my own countrymen in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina when we all saw people, including police officers, looting Walmart and many other businesses. To me it's unacceptable for Americans to be doing that sort of thing as the "leaders of the free world." Thats one area where the Japanese have the high ground over Americans; sense of community through disaster.
Let me qualify my remarks by saying I realize that the percentage of Americans who were looting after Katrina, is small, but when it's broadcast over international TV, it reflects on the whole country.
I was watching ABC World News with Diane Sawyer this evening and she said there have been no reports of looting since the earthquake. She went on to say that the total population is about half that of the US, squeezed into an area the size of Montana.
If it's true that there has been no looting, I think that says a lot for the Japanese people. That's a sign of a very respectable and community oriented civilization.
I lived in Japan for one year while serving in the US Marines, and I enjoyed every minute of my stay there. I do hope that someday I can make a return visit.
Back to the bit about looting, I feel ashamed and embarrassed of my own countrymen in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina when we all saw people, including police officers, looting Walmart and many other businesses. To me it's unacceptable for Americans to be doing that sort of thing as the "leaders of the free world." Thats one area where the Japanese have the high ground over Americans; sense of community through disaster.
Let me qualify my remarks by saying I realize that the percentage of Americans who were looting after Katrina, is small, but when it's broadcast over international TV, it reflects on the whole country.
Ugg
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Red-red
Apr 9, 08:26 PM
Sorry I have such a small brain.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
jasper77
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz, Onkyo, Rotel and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to built ITV inside their recievers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
citizenzen
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
Intelligence has something to do with it.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
I think the last paragraph is a key to why atheists hold out for proof. We've seen time and time again over history where something that has been attributed to the supernatural or a God turned out to be quite natural.
Likewise questions about the origins of the universe, that today seem utterly mysterious and unanswerable, may one day be resolved and explained within the natural confines.
Atheists are loathe to latch on to supernatural conclusions when that camp has been proven wrong time and time and time again.
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
awmazz
Mar 12, 03:29 AM
Of course as with all nuclear disasters there's the usual 'don't worry, it's not that bad' while at the same time they evacuate 45,000 people from the immediate surrounds..
Analysts say a meltdown would not necessarily lead to a major disaster because light-water reactors would not explode even if they overheated.
Well, that map seems to show Japan itself will be okay from the fallout at least.
EDIT- They've extended the evacuation radius around the #2 plant to 10km, the same as the #1 plant. The #1 plant is the one which had the explosion.
Analysts say a meltdown would not necessarily lead to a major disaster because light-water reactors would not explode even if they overheated.
Well, that map seems to show Japan itself will be okay from the fallout at least.
EDIT- They've extended the evacuation radius around the #2 plant to 10km, the same as the #1 plant. The #1 plant is the one which had the explosion.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:45 AM
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
Lennholm
May 2, 02:03 PM
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
nick9191
Apr 22, 11:44 PM
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:55 AM
Which is ironic considering Steve Jobs lamented the carriers walled garden. I love my iPhone, but I also understand that I traded AT&Ts walled garden for Apples.
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7.
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 06:48 PM
Not the games then? I guess that is why the Pippin was such a tremendous success. Less than 80 games, but a great bit of hardware inside the box. Everyone wanted one. :rolleyes:
2011 called . . .
The strength of Apple's hardware+software attracts the content. It isn't the other way around.
2011 called . . .
The strength of Apple's hardware+software attracts the content. It isn't the other way around.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
takao
Mar 14, 12:31 PM
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
nixd2001
Oct 12, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
there is a lot a compiler could do to this - by us all (well, those who have the interest in the assembler output of a compiler at least) having a look at what the respective compilers have done, we can form more of an informed opinion of what works out to the benefit of the P4 for this case. This might all be a bit geeky, but I am intersted at least.
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
there is a lot a compiler could do to this - by us all (well, those who have the interest in the assembler output of a compiler at least) having a look at what the respective compilers have done, we can form more of an informed opinion of what works out to the benefit of the P4 for this case. This might all be a bit geeky, but I am intersted at least.
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:17 AM
And it still won't work.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
superleccy
Sep 20, 08:48 AM
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
PJWilkinson
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I've just got back from the live streamed event in London and summarised the key highlights of the show here:
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.