The 911s use turbos and high RPMs to make a much smaller engine competitive. The low weight (and midship placement) also contributes to it's finer handling.
The 911 has the engine mounted behind the rear axle, so it is a rear-engine, not a mid-engined car.
Re:Apple isn't being held back by anyone but Apple
on
New G4s Coming Our Way
·
· Score: 1
No, back in October Motorola said that they would have 1 GHz G4s someday. Eventually. Not in October. Not today. Later...
The quote above strikes me as a butchering of an argument put forth by Hans Moravic in his book _Robot_ (and I can't quote the subtitle from memory). Go to Carnegie Mellon University's web site.
He presents a cogent argument that we are five orders of magnitude away from computing power that simulates the human brain. He lists the steps as the intelligence of:
an insect,
a lizard,
a mouse,
a monkey,
and human.
Moore's law says five orders of magnitude is 17 doublings. 34 years for the pessimists who use 4x every 4 years. Make that 33, 'cause the book came out last year.
Speaking of funding the FBI, recent government incentives to "do more with less", you have just electronically signed a contract to lease computer equipment to the FBI for a period of no less than two years for no recompense. You are responsible for any damage to the equipment, and technical support as specified in FBI-GOV-QOS-23847. Thank you for supporting your government.
I agree that what you put in your body is your own goddamn business. But are you prepared to argue that you're entitiled to drive stoned or drunk?
Alcohol is legal. We (the USA) learned that lesson the hard way in the 1920s, with prohibition. Modern prohibition (esp. of weed) is just as damaging as alcohol prohibition was.
Drunk Driving rates are going down. The campaign to reduce the number of people who drink and drive is working... because the public recognizes the truth that drunk driving endangers others. Impairment of one's driving ability while stoned ought to be measured against impairment from alcohol, and legislated as equivalent.
Not quite true. Bush is proposing to cut taxes more than Gore is. That decreases the size of what the government has to spend, which decreases the size of the government - assuming Bush consistently balances the budget. If he's elected and he and a Republican congress can't keep reducing taxes (or at least the deficit) while balancing the budget, I probably won't be voting for him again.
You have great faith in your belief that Republicans cut taxes and keep the budget balanced. Reagan tripled the National Debt, after promising a balanced budget. "No New Taxes" added another trillion, and left the country running 300 Billion dollar deficits every year.
Actually, it's Bush who wants to drastically increase the size of the Federal Government. The Military is the largest expenditure (as opposed to transfer payment) that the government makes.
Where's you evidence? Your bald claim that the media is biased against your candidate seems laughable in the face of the specific examples of media parroting Republican lies about the vice president.
But I was talking about the refinery companies themselves (Exxon, Shell, Mobile etc.) who also own the vast majority of the retail outlets (your local gas stations). They are accused of operating an informal cartel to maintain high gas prices at the pumps. This is separate from restricting the supply of crude oil.
Be careful what you say. Within the United States, such cartels would violate anti-trust laws. I am more careful when accusing folks of committing felonies.
The laws of supply and demand are nearly sufficient to explain how gas prices have fluctuated in the U.S.A (especially the midwest) so far this summer. A pipeline to the midwest was out of commission; less supply => higher prices.
You could think of it that way. But it's really less than that. Classic is a way to run a fully licensed copy of MacOS9, but instead of MacOS9 working with the hardware, shims redirect the calls to MacOS X, so resources (like screen real estate, file system, or memory) are fully shared between the two environments.
If this is the case, would it be possible, at some point in the future, for Apple to release the source and/or port it to Linux, so as to run MacOS (9, at least) apps from LinuxPPC?
Possible, but (IMHO) highly unlikely. To me, though, MacOS X is a 'best of both worlds' environment: Open-Source BSD-on-Mach at the kernel. I am sure there will be Open-Source Distros that install all your favorite Unix applications/utilities/etc. onto MacOS X. Plus Cocoa (nee NextStep), Carbon ('cleaned up' MacOS9) and Classic (MacOS 9) applications.
And say what you want; to me, $1299 was a pretty good price for a stylish green iMac with 15" monitor, 64 MB RAM, 10 GB HD, USB and FireWire ports, printer, scanner, and free shipping. Back in March. They ought to be less now, with new machines at the old price points announced next week.
But the list of negatives is very, very long: inability to update their software with modern necessities (PMT, VM that's not broken, etc).
Why in the world do you insist that 70s timesharing technologies are "modern necesseties"? The Macintosh changed the world in 1984, demonstrating that what was then decade-old mini and mainframe software techniques were not necessary. Nice to have if you can afford the hardware, sure. But not "modern", and not "necessities".
Backstabbing the developers.
To what do you refer? Apple has introduced a number of technologies that it later found it didn't have the resources to support. I'm thinking OpenDoc here; it never quite worked right, but they left it in the system for a release or two, and then made it an optional install. Is that backstabbing?
To answer your question, folks use Macintosh because it's the right tool for their jobs.
There was no transition from the Apple II to the Macintosh. They were two completely distinct product lines that coexisted for quite a long time together.
P'raps you're forgetting the Apple II compatibility cards that Apple made for the Mac LC series?
Remember the 68040 to PowerPC changeover? A LOT of people upgraded their machines only to find their non-native software running much slower than it had previously.
Bullhonkies. The slowest PowerPC machine (I own one) ran 68K code in emulation about as fast as the next-to-top-of-the-line machine that it replaced. PowerMac 6100 (60 MHz PPC 601) ran 68K code about as fast as the Quadra 610, a 25 MHz 68040. The only folks who would have found a slowdown were those who upgraded 6 month old machines like a Quadra 840/AV (33 MHz 68040) to the PowerPCs.
The PowerPC Mac was a huge upgrade in 68K performance from what I had been using (a Mac SE).
And applications that needed access to the floating point unit wouldn't run at all. That's a pretty drastic change. If you've forgotten about that, then that means that in the end they managed the transition very smoothly.
Sigh. More half-truths. Apple did not write the 68K emulator to emulate the floating-point hardware, that is true. Apple's programmer guidelines were to use SANE (Standard Apple Numeric Environment) calls -- which were PowerPC native the first time out. So well-written, floating-point intensive 68K software got a big performance boost when running on PowerPC.
The software that broke wrote directly to the floating-point unit, and simply quit if the FPU wasn't there. It isn't Apple's fault that some buggy software wouldn't run; programmers have to code to the APIs.
Exactly the same place, except Apple would have the monopoly (Since if they had control over use of the WIMP system, they would be able to push all competition out of the market), except we still wouldn't have a multitasking OS with GUI.
That's not the way it was. Apple didn't claim to own WIMP; they only claimed to own 200 or so user interface details. They lost the suit when Microsoft produced documents that showed that Apple gave away (or were tricked out of, depending on who you listen to) enough of those details that Win3.0 was judged to not infringe on the rest.
The X Windows System was around in 1984; it had windows, mice, and pointers (not sure about icons).
'cept you're wrong on the disk tech: the G4 is UDMA 66. The iMac is only UDMA 33... Now put prices next to everything, and count your time to assemble/debug the hardware and settings. And include fireWire and USB ports, 56K modem, and 10/100 ethernet.
Protected memory and preemptive multitasking were old technologies in 1984. Doing them again wouldn't have changed much. Doing a usable window, icon, mouse, and pointer computer system (in 1983) and again for an affordable price in 1984 _did_ change the world. Yes, they had to make tradeoffs to meet the market, and those 1984 tradeoffs leave their legacy today (although the legacy will be gone with MacOS X early next year). I think this is Pike's point: don't just redo the old stuff, do something new and innovative.
> a theory is just a theory it should not be > accepted as truth. How true that is, A theory is just that. Evolution, pythagrous, relativity. The problem comes about when people accept them as facts.
First off, a scientific theory is a very different beast from a theorem in mathematics. So the Pythagorean theorem doesn't belong on your list.
Second, the notion of Fact and Theory are intricately tied together; truth is relative. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
'cause the Palestinians don't sell the US any oil...
I think Aqua is more hype than substantial improvement.
But having an open-source BSD 4.X API layer on a Mach microkernal. With XFree86.
All of a sudden, it's the best of both worlds. Most Linux or BSD software will be just a recompile away.
The 911 has the engine mounted behind the rear axle, so it is a rear-engine, not a mid-engined car.
No, back in October Motorola said that they would have 1 GHz G4s someday. Eventually. Not in October. Not today. Later...
He presents a cogent argument that we are five orders of magnitude away from computing power that simulates the human brain. He lists the steps as the intelligence of:
an insect,
a lizard,
a mouse,
a monkey,
and human.
Moore's law says five orders of magnitude is 17 doublings. 34 years for the pessimists who use 4x every 4 years. Make that 33, 'cause the book came out last year.
Speaking of funding the FBI, recent government incentives to "do more with less", you have just electronically signed a contract to lease computer equipment to the FBI for a period of no less than two years for no recompense. You are responsible for any damage to the equipment, and technical support as specified in FBI-GOV-QOS-23847. Thank you for supporting your government.
Alcohol is legal. We (the USA) learned that lesson the hard way in the 1920s, with prohibition. Modern prohibition (esp. of weed) is just as damaging as alcohol prohibition was.
Drunk Driving rates are going down. The campaign to reduce the number of people who drink and drive is working... because the public recognizes the truth that drunk driving endangers others. Impairment of one's driving ability while stoned ought to be measured against impairment from alcohol, and legislated as equivalent.
You have great faith in your belief that Republicans cut taxes and keep the budget balanced. Reagan tripled the National Debt, after promising a balanced budget. "No New Taxes" added another trillion, and left the country running 300 Billion dollar deficits every year.
Why do you think that won't happen again?
Actually, it's Bush who wants to drastically increase the size of the Federal Government. The Military is the largest expenditure (as opposed to transfer payment) that the government makes.
Where's you evidence? Your bald claim that the media is biased against your candidate seems laughable in the face of the specific examples of media parroting Republican lies about the vice president.
Three words: Run Microsoft Office.
Be careful what you say. Within the United States, such cartels would violate anti-trust laws. I am more careful when accusing folks of committing felonies.
The laws of supply and demand are nearly sufficient to explain how gas prices have fluctuated in the U.S.A (especially the midwest) so far this summer. A pipeline to the midwest was out of commission; less supply => higher prices.
You could think of it that way. But it's really less than that. Classic is a way to run a fully licensed copy of MacOS9, but instead of MacOS9 working with the hardware, shims redirect the calls to MacOS X, so resources (like screen real estate, file system, or memory) are fully shared between the two environments.
If this is the case, would it be possible, at some point in the future, for Apple to release the source and/or port it to Linux, so as to run MacOS (9, at least) apps from LinuxPPC?
Possible, but (IMHO) highly unlikely. To me, though, MacOS X is a 'best of both worlds' environment: Open-Source BSD-on-Mach at the kernel. I am sure there will be Open-Source Distros that install all your favorite Unix applications/utilities/etc. onto MacOS X. Plus Cocoa (nee NextStep), Carbon ('cleaned up' MacOS9) and Classic (MacOS 9) applications.
And say what you want; to me, $1299 was a pretty good price for a stylish green iMac with 15" monitor, 64 MB RAM, 10 GB HD, USB and FireWire ports, printer, scanner, and free shipping. Back in March. They ought to be less now, with new machines at the old price points announced next week.
Microsoft doesn't have USB support in WinNT SP 4 that this March-2000 Dell OptiPlex GX1 runs. So what exactly do you mean by "support"?
Why in the world do you insist that 70s timesharing technologies are "modern necesseties"? The Macintosh changed the world in 1984, demonstrating that what was then decade-old mini and mainframe software techniques were not necessary. Nice to have if you can afford the hardware, sure. But not "modern", and not "necessities".
Backstabbing the developers.
To what do you refer? Apple has introduced a number of technologies that it later found it didn't have the resources to support. I'm thinking OpenDoc here; it never quite worked right, but they left it in the system for a release or two, and then made it an optional install. Is that backstabbing?
To answer your question, folks use Macintosh because it's the right tool for their jobs.
P'raps you're forgetting the Apple II compatibility cards that Apple made for the Mac LC series?
Remember the 68040 to PowerPC changeover? A LOT of people upgraded their machines only to find their non-native software running much slower than it had previously.
Bullhonkies. The slowest PowerPC machine (I own one) ran 68K code in emulation about as fast as the next-to-top-of-the-line machine that it replaced. PowerMac 6100 (60 MHz PPC 601) ran 68K code about as fast as the Quadra 610, a 25 MHz 68040. The only folks who would have found a slowdown were those who upgraded 6 month old machines like a Quadra 840/AV (33 MHz 68040) to the PowerPCs.
The PowerPC Mac was a huge upgrade in 68K performance from what I had been using (a Mac SE).
And applications that needed access to the floating point unit wouldn't run at all. That's a pretty drastic change. If you've forgotten about that, then that means that in the end they managed the transition very smoothly.
Sigh. More half-truths. Apple did not write the 68K emulator to emulate the floating-point hardware, that is true. Apple's programmer guidelines were to use SANE (Standard Apple Numeric Environment) calls -- which were PowerPC native the first time out. So well-written, floating-point intensive 68K software got a big performance boost when running on PowerPC.
The software that broke wrote directly to the floating-point unit, and simply quit if the FPU wasn't there. It isn't Apple's fault that some buggy software wouldn't run; programmers have to code to the APIs.
That's not the way it was. Apple didn't claim to own WIMP; they only claimed to own 200 or so user interface details. They lost the suit when Microsoft produced documents that showed that Apple gave away (or were tricked out of, depending on who you listen to) enough of those details that Win3.0 was judged to not infringe on the rest.
The X Windows System was around in 1984; it had windows, mice, and pointers (not sure about icons).
'cept you're wrong on the disk tech: the G4 is UDMA 66. The iMac is only UDMA 33... Now put prices next to everything, and count your time to assemble/debug the hardware and settings. And include fireWire and USB ports, 56K modem, and 10/100 ethernet.
Protected memory and preemptive multitasking were old technologies in 1984. Doing them again wouldn't have changed much. Doing a usable window, icon, mouse, and pointer computer system (in 1983) and again for an affordable price in 1984 _did_ change the world. Yes, they had to make tradeoffs to meet the market, and those 1984 tradeoffs leave their legacy today (although the legacy will be gone with MacOS X early next year). I think this is Pike's point: don't just redo the old stuff, do something new and innovative.
First off, a scientific theory is a very different beast from a theorem in mathematics. So the Pythagorean theorem doesn't belong on your list.
Second, the notion of Fact and Theory are intricately tied together; truth is relative. Sorry.