Calling it the fastest CPU is extremely misleading.
I doubt it, in this case. Last time I checked (which, admittedly, was a few years ago), Power CPUs were capable of doing slightly less than twice the work of an Intel CPU, at the same clock speed. If that still holds true, that 5.2GHz Power CPU is roughly the equivalent of a 10GHz Intel CPU. Of course, I measured this with my own (probably subjective) benchmarks, so your results may vary.
Sir, you seem to have drank deep of the kool aid. But it's okay. You can stop now. Even Steve Jobs himself admitted that PPC was shit for the desktop and switched to Intel.
The PPC chips were always inferior, and every benchmark showing otherwise was cooked.
Look at what they did with Nintendo DS. They sneaked up on it through music. People are very emotionally attached to their music, so associating something else with their music would be a good strategy. The start with this social network for music, building a core group of people. Then these people will form a critical mass such that they can bring in non-music things.
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Look at what who did with the Nintendo DS? Nintendo? They sold over 132,000,000 of them. And over 575,000,000 games (despite nearly ubiquitous piracy). At an average price of $35, that equates to over $20,000,000,000 in software revenue, and at an average price of about $150 (a low estimate of the average), you've got another $20,000,000,000 in hardware revenue (yes, they make money on the hardware - they do not sell it at a loss).
Steve Jobs can count the number of apps or downloads all day long, but nothing changes the bottom line: iPhone / iPod / iPad games are shitty, and don't amount to shit in terms of cash money when compared to the DS or even the PSP.
Where's the $ figures for iThing games? Is it at $20,000,000,000 yet?
We can even extend our "intranet" to remote (non-local) locations through the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs.
A VIRTUAL Private Network pretends that you're on the same LAN by opening an encrypted conversation that travels over THE INTERNET. You seem to have that confused with a true Private Network.
I think you're the one who's confused.
I specifically mention that VPNs are virtual and are used to extend local networks to non-local networks. If you travel across the internet or across your company's own fiber to an out-of-state office, the security a VPN offers still applies. VPNs do more than securely wrap your packets in an encrypted stream - they can handle addressing issues too (especially useful in situations where you're not relying on the internet, and as such, publicly addressable IPs).
I'm curious as to how you would do remote surgery via sneakernet... just wondering... I suppose you/could/ lay dedicated fiber from all hospitals to all others, but I'm sure there's something that already does that, I just can't think of its name...
Having a surgeon control a scalpel in my chest from across the internets sounds like a terrible idea.
The Internet is the cheapest available method to move bits from one place to another. Is there a another network that does the job well enough to be considered a competitor?
There's this thing called a local area network. In the presence of the internet, and internet-like service running locally, we can distinguish it by calling it the "intranet". We can even extend our "intranet" to remote (non-local) locations through the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Hello and welcome to the 1980s. Watch out for the boneitis.
Ah yes, paying for healthcare is stealing, but spending money on military is fine. You guys are really weird sometimes.
Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
If you want to drop our military spending to some sort of "average" or "normal" level consistent with that of other countries, I think you'll find that we'll end up with an "average" or "normal" military in terms of capabilities.
If, instead, you're arguing for everyone to buy into their own private military as opposed to having a publicly funded one, you're dumber than a Democrat.
Again, you're an idiot, and all you think about is pot.
Protip: There are hard drugs out there that fuck people up. People do stupid things when on drugs. Criminal things. You're a moron if you actually think legal drugs for everyone will result in LESS violent and dipshit behavior.
Do you think ecstasy users should be put in jail for taking a drug that, and this is not an exaggeration, one hit of can be the turning point in a depressed person's life, back towards regaining self love and emotional connectedness with others? I speak from experience.
And breaking down those charges in that manner is useless - it's done to downplay the fact that criminals fucking recidivate all the time.
Tell me, do those statistics overlap? What if a murderer was released, then arrested for murder in relation to a drug deal? Would it be counted in both categories?
Tell me, do those statistics count more than one "arrest, release, arrest again" sequence? What is a thug beats and robs someone, goes to jail, gets out, does it again, gets out again, and does something else? What exactly are we counting?
While the statistics in the report are true, and the method of collecting / categorizing them is useful to the people making the reports, trotting them out as support for some free-range prison program is hokum. People do not care about criminals getting arrested again for specific crimes. They care about criminals reoffending at all. (Note that reoffending does NOT imply rearresting, regardless of how much you promise the police will be on top of it for this new program.)
The illegal nature of this substances means big bucks for those who produce it, and the incentive is to minimize quality and maximize profit. The high price also means those who get hooked on the shit are in many cases driven to robbing their own moms to support their habit.
And this will all magically go away when you legalize it, right?
Street dealers won't try to undercut the prices of legit distributors? They won't violently fight over shrinking illegal markets? They won't lace their shit to get users hooked on their goods specifically? Legal users of legal drugs will behave better?
You're a moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooron.
No, almost half are arrested again (for any crime).
Cappp, and the article he linked to, want to claim that most rearrests are NOT for violent crimes, and only about 1% of rapists/murders are arrested for violent crime again (thus, making people feel safe when they put criminals on the street).
Yet the statistics ACTUALLY show that it's about 1% that are arrested for the SAME offense. A murderer getting arrested for attempted murder, assault, etc. would NOT be counted in that deceivingly low and meaningless 1% stat they reported. It's hokum.
Basically: You should NOT take comfort in it. The article, and cappp, want you to be okay with having criminals on the street. The article spun some stats and said:
"Hey look, only about 1%* of violent criminals are rearrested!
*Data only includes violent criminals** rearrested for violent crimes***.
**Violent criminals refers to rapists, murderers, and other sexual offenders. This statement does not include data for any other violent crimes.
***The only violent crimes that count in the rearrest statistic are those that are the SAME EXACT violent crimes from the original arrest."
Flash is better at all of those things than tape except electrical shock, and you can isolate the module with optical signals and power via induction (with its own fairly complex power supply in there on the other end, thus handling surges) or via optical power, which is horribly inefficient but who cares? It doesn't take much power to write flash, and turbines can be designed to produce basically any amount of electrical power you like.
You're an idiot. Go crash a plane with a flash drive and a tape drive, then see which has more recoverable data.
Or we could get the stick out of our ass, end the war on drugs and start making our deeds better match our words about being the most free country on the planet and in the process shave 25% of the taxpayers' prison bill - maybe even more considering how much violent crime is derivative of the drug trade.
Drugs are bad and make people do bad things. You should be free to do drugs, but you should be liable for your actions.
Do you currently trust the existing laws, enforcement, and punishment to protect you and yours from the fucking druggies? (The correct answer is "fuck no".)
While the drug war is fucking stupid and is the source of many problems, the liberal fantasy that drugs for all would make everyone hold hands and skip down the road is fucking retarded.
Or perhaps you disagree and would have no problem living in the meth belt?
That's not quite supported by the figures. Although recidivism rates are high when considered overall, the Justice Department figures for 1994 (I couldn't get the more recent pdf's to open)show that
Released prisoners with the lowest rearrest rates were those in prison for homicide (40.7%), rape (46.0%), other sexual assault (41.4%), and driving under the influence (51.5%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
The report specifically notes that although violent prisoners reoffend, the vast majority are not being arrested for another violent offence.
Wrong. Nearly half of rapists / murders get arrested again for something else. The vast majority are not arrested for the SAME violent offense.
As you mention, this means around $6000 for a twenty years period, instead of $1165 for a printed version.
The times they are a'changing. Why should anyone want to pay $295/yr for something they used to get in printed form at $58/yr, assuming one bought a new edition of the OED once every twenty years?
Do the OED publishers really think it's worth paying five times the price, besides not getting a set of printed books, just to get the few slang words that appeared since 1989? Haven't they ever heard of Google? That's the way I learn about the new slang!
Perhaps: Storage space is an issue. Accessing it from multiple locations is a benefit. Not having to worry about it burning in a fire, getting stolen, or getting otherwise damaged.
doesn't help your feeble argument. Anyone with an ounce of sense could stop reading at "atheism is just yet another form of religion." Sure, Skippy - the absence of something is another form of that thing. And black is just a darker shade of white. Moron.
Spoken like a true Atheist. Atheists cling on to their rabid ideals with a zeal equivalent to that of the best of religious nutjobs. Atheists are constantly claiming to be under assault for their beliefs. Atheists are constantly trying to convert people and thus "better" their lives. Atheists engage in any and all religious topics with a fervor and hate that would make Pope Gregory IX proud. Atheists claim to be objective, scientific, rational, reasonable, generous, and empathetic while actually being nothing but a bunch of incessantly-screeching, hypocritical, self-serving baboons. Atheists claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that there is nothing spiritual in the universe, just as any religious person will claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that there is. They both have the exact same amount of evidence.
I'm not religious in any way, but Atheists are fucking retards. All hail Atheismo!
If you take a full color wheel and reduce it to the color space a person with a particular form of color blindness can see, then a person with that particular color blindness will see no change.
A normal individual will see the full color version normally and the altered vision in the same manner the color blind individual would see the full version.
The concept you're relying on is that since colors are perceived due to the differences in frequencies and their respective intensities, deciding how to represent a color cannot be determined.
However, these is completely wrong.
If someone cannot see red at all, i.e., their eye does not respond to it, the simple act of setting all red channels to 0 would be exactly what you would need to do to see what they see.
Real color blindness isn't that simple, but it is well-understood and well-cataloged. We can make, and indeed we have made, mappings for many of the forms that color blindness can take. Altering an image to "see what they see" is a simple process of applying the color mapping.
In your scenario of someone not being able to tell the difference between green and red, they would also not be able to tell the difference between any mixture of the two.
Slashdot Mirror
The word you are looking for is "sleight".
Sleight of hand.
I doubt it, in this case. Last time I checked (which, admittedly, was a few years ago), Power CPUs were capable of doing slightly less than twice the work of an Intel CPU, at the same clock speed. If that still holds true, that 5.2GHz Power CPU is roughly the equivalent of a 10GHz Intel CPU. Of course, I measured this with my own (probably subjective) benchmarks, so your results may vary.
Sir, you seem to have drank deep of the kool aid.
But it's okay. You can stop now. Even Steve Jobs himself admitted that PPC was shit for the desktop and switched to Intel.
The PPC chips were always inferior, and every benchmark showing otherwise was cooked.
Look at what they did with Nintendo DS. They sneaked up on it through music. People are very emotionally attached to their music, so associating something else with their music would be a good strategy. The start with this social network for music, building a core group of people. Then these people will form a critical mass such that they can bring in non-music things.
Apple has it's strategy right because they are making money from their social network (through music) and can thus outlive the non-profit social networks in existence.
Look at what who did with the Nintendo DS?
Nintendo? They sold over 132,000,000 of them. And over 575,000,000 games (despite nearly ubiquitous piracy). At an average price of $35, that equates to over $20,000,000,000 in software revenue, and at an average price of about $150 (a low estimate of the average), you've got another $20,000,000,000 in hardware revenue (yes, they make money on the hardware - they do not sell it at a loss).
Steve Jobs can count the number of apps or downloads all day long, but nothing changes the bottom line: iPhone / iPod / iPad games are shitty, and don't amount to shit in terms of cash money when compared to the DS or even the PSP.
Where's the $ figures for iThing games? Is it at $20,000,000,000 yet?
We can even extend our "intranet" to remote (non-local) locations through the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs.
A VIRTUAL Private Network pretends that you're on the same LAN by opening an encrypted conversation that travels over THE INTERNET. You seem to have that confused with a true Private Network.
I think you're the one who's confused.
I specifically mention that VPNs are virtual and are used to extend local networks to non-local networks. If you travel across the internet or across your company's own fiber to an out-of-state office, the security a VPN offers still applies. VPNs do more than securely wrap your packets in an encrypted stream - they can handle addressing issues too (especially useful in situations where you're not relying on the internet, and as such, publicly addressable IPs).
Satellite phones?
Radios?
Eyes?
Feet?
I'm curious as to how you would do remote surgery via sneakernet ... just wondering ... I suppose you /could/ lay dedicated fiber from all hospitals to all others, but I'm sure there's something that already does that, I just can't think of its name ...
Having a surgeon control a scalpel in my chest from across the internets sounds like a terrible idea.
The Internet is the cheapest available method to move bits from one place to another. Is there a another network that does the job well enough to be considered a competitor?
There's this thing called a local area network.
In the presence of the internet, and internet-like service running locally, we can distinguish it by calling it the "intranet". We can even extend our "intranet" to remote (non-local) locations through the use of virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Hello and welcome to the 1980s.
Watch out for the boneitis.
We won't need any cache because the RAM will be inside the CPU - it will all be cache.
Pull the other one.
Wikipedia is so shitty.
Can I download all of Wikipedia, re-host it, and then run shitipedia.org and leave it completely open?
Ah yes, paying for healthcare is stealing, but spending money on military is fine. You guys are really weird sometimes.
Seems to me the US military has done more to extend the lives of US citizens than public-funded medicine ever has or will.
If you want to drop our military spending to some sort of "average" or "normal" level consistent with that of other countries, I think you'll find that we'll end up with an "average" or "normal" military in terms of capabilities.
If, instead, you're arguing for everyone to buy into their own private military as opposed to having a publicly funded one, you're dumber than a Democrat.
Again, you're an idiot, and all you think about is pot.
Protip: There are hard drugs out there that fuck people up. People do stupid things when on drugs. Criminal things. You're a moron if you actually think legal drugs for everyone will result in LESS violent and dipshit behavior.
Do you think ecstasy users should be put in jail for taking a drug that, and this is not an exaggeration, one hit of can be the turning point in a depressed person's life, back towards regaining self love and emotional connectedness with others? I speak from experience.
Oh, so you're just a trololololololololl.
And breaking down those charges in that manner is useless - it's done to downplay the fact that criminals fucking recidivate all the time.
Tell me, do those statistics overlap?
What if a murderer was released, then arrested for murder in relation to a drug deal? Would it be counted in both categories?
Tell me, do those statistics count more than one "arrest, release, arrest again" sequence? What is a thug beats and robs someone, goes to jail, gets out, does it again, gets out again, and does something else? What exactly are we counting?
While the statistics in the report are true, and the method of collecting / categorizing them is useful to the people making the reports, trotting them out as support for some free-range prison program is hokum.
People do not care about criminals getting arrested again for specific crimes. They care about criminals reoffending at all. (Note that reoffending does NOT imply rearresting, regardless of how much you promise the police will be on top of it for this new program.)
The illegal nature of this substances means big bucks for those who produce it, and the incentive is to minimize quality and maximize profit. The high price also means those who get hooked on the shit are in many cases driven to robbing their own moms to support their habit.
And this will all magically go away when you legalize it, right?
Street dealers won't try to undercut the prices of legit distributors?
They won't violently fight over shrinking illegal markets?
They won't lace their shit to get users hooked on their goods specifically?
Legal users of legal drugs will behave better?
You're a moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooron.
No, almost half are arrested again (for any crime).
Cappp, and the article he linked to, want to claim that most rearrests are NOT for violent crimes, and only about 1% of rapists/murders are arrested for violent crime again (thus, making people feel safe when they put criminals on the street).
Yet the statistics ACTUALLY show that it's about 1% that are arrested for the SAME offense. A murderer getting arrested for attempted murder, assault, etc. would NOT be counted in that deceivingly low and meaningless 1% stat they reported. It's hokum.
Basically:
You should NOT take comfort in it.
The article, and cappp, want you to be okay with having criminals on the street.
The article spun some stats and said:
"Hey look, only about 1%* of violent criminals are rearrested!
*Data only includes violent criminals** rearrested for violent crimes***.
**Violent criminals refers to rapists, murderers, and other sexual offenders. This statement does not include data for any other violent crimes.
***The only violent crimes that count in the rearrest statistic are those that are the SAME EXACT violent crimes from the original arrest."
Flash is better at all of those things than tape except electrical shock, and you can isolate the module with optical signals and power via induction (with its own fairly complex power supply in there on the other end, thus handling surges) or via optical power, which is horribly inefficient but who cares? It doesn't take much power to write flash, and turbines can be designed to produce basically any amount of electrical power you like.
You're an idiot.
Go crash a plane with a flash drive and a tape drive, then see which has more recoverable data.
Or we could get the stick out of our ass, end the war on drugs and start making our deeds better match our words about being the most free country on the planet and in the process shave 25% of the taxpayers' prison bill - maybe even more considering how much violent crime is derivative of the drug trade.
Drugs are bad and make people do bad things.
You should be free to do drugs, but you should be liable for your actions.
Do you currently trust the existing laws, enforcement, and punishment to protect you and yours from the fucking druggies? (The correct answer is "fuck no".)
While the drug war is fucking stupid and is the source of many problems, the liberal fantasy that drugs for all would make everyone hold hands and skip down the road is fucking retarded.
Or perhaps you disagree and would have no problem living in the meth belt?
That's not quite supported by the figures. Although recidivism rates are high when considered overall, the Justice Department figures for 1994 (I couldn't get the more recent pdf's to open)show that
The report specifically notes that although violent prisoners reoffend, the vast majority are not being arrested for another violent offence.
Wrong.
Nearly half of rapists / murders get arrested again for something else.
The vast majority are not arrested for the SAME violent offense.
As you mention, this means around $6000 for a twenty years period, instead of $1165 for a printed version.
The times they are a'changing. Why should anyone want to pay $295/yr for something they used to get in printed form at $58/yr, assuming one bought a new edition of the OED once every twenty years?
Do the OED publishers really think it's worth paying five times the price, besides not getting a set of printed books, just to get the few slang words that appeared since 1989? Haven't they ever heard of Google? That's the way I learn about the new slang!
Perhaps:
Storage space is an issue.
Accessing it from multiple locations is a benefit.
Not having to worry about it burning in a fire, getting stolen, or getting otherwise damaged.
CTRL+F is pretty useful, too.
doesn't help your feeble argument. Anyone with an ounce of sense could stop reading at "atheism is just yet another form of religion." Sure, Skippy - the absence of something is another form of that thing. And black is just a darker shade of white. Moron.
Spoken like a true Atheist. Atheists cling on to their rabid ideals with a zeal equivalent to that of the best of religious nutjobs. Atheists are constantly claiming to be under assault for their beliefs. Atheists are constantly trying to convert people and thus "better" their lives. Atheists engage in any and all religious topics with a fervor and hate that would make Pope Gregory IX proud. Atheists claim to be objective, scientific, rational, reasonable, generous, and empathetic while actually being nothing but a bunch of incessantly-screeching, hypocritical, self-serving baboons. Atheists claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that there is nothing spiritual in the universe, just as any religious person will claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that there is. They both have the exact same amount of evidence.
I'm not religious in any way, but Atheists are fucking retards. All hail Atheismo!
"Military ops normally require a lot more communications than this"
not for a go.
Decades old "go" orders tend to be a bit stale, especially in that region, after the whole cold war thing.
"Comrades, we are now go for invasion of Longgoninstan, Notonyourmapistan, and Genericstanistan."
It is not equivalent.
I, as the person being told, am being revealed information about a set that may or may not already be determined.
I am not predicting the odds of future events with given restrictions.
See the Monty Hall problem.
You are completely fucking wrong.
You make no sense.
If you take a full color wheel and reduce it to the color space a person with a particular form of color blindness can see, then a person with that particular color blindness will see no change.
A normal individual will see the full color version normally and the altered vision in the same manner the color blind individual would see the full version.
The concept you're relying on is that since colors are perceived due to the differences in frequencies and their respective intensities, deciding how to represent a color cannot be determined.
However, these is completely wrong.
If someone cannot see red at all, i.e., their eye does not respond to it, the simple act of setting all red channels to 0 would be exactly what you would need to do to see what they see.
Real color blindness isn't that simple, but it is well-understood and well-cataloged. We can make, and indeed we have made, mappings for many of the forms that color blindness can take. Altering an image to "see what they see" is a simple process of applying the color mapping.
In your scenario of someone not being able to tell the difference between green and red, they would also not be able to tell the difference between any mixture of the two.
And the director says that the 16:9 version is the one he wants to show people.
The film was shot in 16:9.
A wider version is going to simply result in less actual image.
Director's are not magical, they do not poop rainbows, and their artistic "intent" doesn't mean something is better in 47:20 than it is in 16:9.
I'll say it again.
The film was shot in 16:9.
Only $50,000 lining the walls of the banana stand.