I'm an adult too, and I don't think that not being cursed at is being "spoken down to". In fact, if anything, I would considder it an insult that I'm getting cursed at, that THAT is being spoken down to.
As for your Bruce Willis reference, I agree that when that kind of thing happens it's anoying. Like I said, I don't mind a little cursing if it really fits the situation. But the constant cussing is just annoying and juvenile, IMHO.
Also, I'm not a religous nutjob. I'm not terribly religous at all. I'm just tired of being cussed at. I find it INSULTING. It gets on my nerves about just a little more than laugh tracks. Why? Here's why:
Hey networks! I'm smart enough to figure out when to laugh and when people are pissed off without needing laughtracks and cursing.
I can't say it much more plain than that. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but it's not going to hurt you to town down the over-the-top-use-them-as-normal-words-and-in-every -other-sentence cursing that we are speeding head on towards.
First off, I have to say that when it's done decently, I see no problem with product placement. Untill it's like the hot chocolate mix add in the movie "The Truman Show", I don't have a problem. I don't mind if when a guy is drinking a soda on TV it's a REAL Coke can as opposed to something that looks almost exactly like a Coke can but say "Cola" on it or something. As long as the camera doesn't zoom in on it or otherwise notice it, it's fine with me.
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer. "I Love Lucy" was (and still is) a funny show without having to have the characters talk like sailors. There are some situations where I understand it (ER does a good job for the most part) but overall I think there is too much cursing on TV. That famous "7 words you can't say on TV" bit (I think it's George Carlin's?), I think I heard that almost all of those words are allowed now.
I haven't noticed an increase in product placement, which means that if it's happening, they are doing a good job and I don't mind. I'd rather we focus on the cussing.
USRobotics makes very high quality modems, and the fact that it's external means that it's NOT software (which is how everyone else manages to make modems so cheap these days). So basically, you're paying for quality and not getting ripped off with a software modem.
Doesn't seem too bad to me, but I haven't modem shopped in a long time.
Why don't you do a little more reading before trolling (which, IMHO, you're doing). First of all, I think that guy's statements still stand, getting the Segway to market was still quiet an achievement.
That said, just look under the heading "Limits":
Update: apparently Segway just recalled all their scooters to fix a similar problem: it can't handle hitting a bump with low batteries.
Balancing depends on being able to keep the wheels under the center of gravity. If you're going fast and then run into something like a ramp or speed bump, it may require a lot of power for a short time to keep the wheels going up the ramp. Basically, it needs enough power available to provide maximum torque (enough to sustain speed up a 45 degree ramp) at the current speed. As batteries get low and motors get warm, the amount of available torque goes down. It's hard to predict exactly when it doesn't have enough to run safely. There's certainly a large gap between when it couldn't handle hitting a speed bump at 5 MPH and when the batteries actually run down. It would be a formidable task to develop the map of battery & motor condition to maximum safe speed, and you'd probably end up shutting it down well before the batteries were exhausted.
There is another paragraph below that with even more info. Reading the first 3 paragraphs does not count as reading the article, you know.
This is a troll. Search for the word FIFO in either the changelogs posted, and you won't find anything like this. If I somehow managed to miss something, point it out to me, but this looks like a TROLL.
YES! Or something like that. I once found a site (I lost the link) that had made a little kernel driver to run IP over SCSI. It was for one of the 2.2 kernels, IIRC, and it would only work with some SCSI cards for some reason.
All and all, a very interesting idea, even if it's not practicle (low number of devices on a SCSI bus, short cable length, etc). Maybe for a little mini-cluster of PC/104 boards if they had built in SCSI or something...
OK, after a quick googleing, I've found this site. There are others too.
The reviews are basically all 32 bit, which is a shame. Linux is out there. I've only seen one review that did anything really 64 bit (running win32 programs on win64 doesn't count). The only 64 bit test they did under Linux was MP3 encoding. The test was the Athlon 64 running a 32 bit version they compiled of the MP3 encoder vs running a 64 bit version of the same program. The "bitness" was the ONLY thing that was changed.
The results? The 64 bit version took nearly HALF THE TIME of the 32 bit version. This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to in some things (MP3s, video encoding, etc).
The Athlon 64 is fast in 32 bit mode, and can beat a P4 many times. But when the 64 bit code comes along, the P4 will be taking one hell of a beating.
PS: Sorry I don't remember which review had this test. I don't have time to go hunting for it right now.
I remember seeing that, and I have to tell you that that comment would have stopped me from installing the update for a few days. I say "would have" because I don't own a Mac. But if I did, my guess is that I would have rushed to update since I've never had an update screw me over (that I can remember).
Now, this update is NOT FOR G5 OWNERS. That said, does this update basically bring all G3s and G4s to the same as G5s (bugfix and feature/improvement wise, except for 1 or 2 very new ones), or is this above and beyond (since I know that G5s shipped with a newer version of OS X). Thanks.
No, not in the way I meant. Yes, 128kb MP3s are there so you can measure against them, but what I mean is to give the 128kb MP3 a perfect score (I'd do it in percent, so 100%. And it would have to be the average of the MP3 range that's the perfect score) and then rate everyone else accordingly. So instead of MP3 getting a 4.3 and Ogg getting 3.6, MP3 would get 100% (as described above) and Ogg would get an adjusted score to show it's percent of MP3's score, in this example 84%.
It would mean more to me to see that for song X, Ogg got a 75% or Real Audio got a 13% against 128kb MP3s than to see that Ogg got a 3.75 and Real Audio got a 0.9.
PS: I made all those numbers up, so don't go checking 'em, it ain't worth your time.
Interesting to look at, and I'm not very suprised that the "we sound as goot at half the bitrate" claim wasn't true, but I do have two observations.
First, I know and listen to some of those songs. It's nice to see band(s) I listen to, it makes the test seem much less... abstract. It seems like these tests usually use music I've never even heard. (For the curious, TMBG and John Linnell).
Second, I would have liked to see the results presented as "quality relative to 128kb MP3", since that's the "gold standard". Just a preference.
I know, that was my point. Now that I read that it didn't come out as I wanted. It should be more like:
... non-Intel (not their X86, not their Xscale, etc)...
Sorry that didn't come out right. Intel isn't going to complain if people move from x86->XScale (they would probably like it because no one else makes XScale processors).
If you guys switch to Linux, it will be easier to move to a non-Intel (x86, Xscale, whatever) platform, so we advise you against it. Stick with something like Windows, where you have to use our processor and can't easily switch to something else (like the processor that China is making).
You make a good point, but let's not forget that they have options. First it could be some form of the Itanic instruction set, which already has compilers (and even a version of Windows XP). Second, if Intel does this fast enough (or AMD adoption is slow enough) they could survive. Intel has compiler people, and maybe they're in kahootz with Microsoft. It's entirely possible that Intel could be doing this. When they turn it on, who's to say that they won't already have a bunch of companies ready to issue patches to their software to instantly take advantage of the new instruction set? They'd have a complier ready to go, they could have a port of Linux done, etc.
They're Intel. If they suddenly have the lead in the 64 bit game overnight (as might happen depending on adoption rate), then combine that with their clout in the industry, and who knows what they could do. I think they could pull it off. If they announce at 10:00 AM PST that all shipped Presscot processors can now be 64 bit processors with no performance hit (actually a gain) for free (just a BIOS update), I bet they could have MS announcing a update to Windows (or a new version of XP for the processor) that's complete by 11:00 AM.
I think that Intel would try to cram the Itanic instruction set into the desktop before they'd take AMD's instruction set unless they get thouroughly creamed in the market and are forced to just to try to survive.
Actually, it would be Sextium, I think. That said, I'd be a name with sex appeal! OK, in all seriousness, they could go to Septium, Octium (which the Lone Gunmen could steal), or anyting else. They could just go to names that aren't based one numbers (the Ueberterian chip, new for 2k4?). They have options.
I've heard this one before, and I've got to say it's an interesting idea. The way I heard the speculation was that Intel would launch Presscot as planned and that while it would contain the 64bit stuff, it would be turned off. Then if AMD hit it off with the Athlon 64, then Intel would tell mobo makers the secret code or whatever that would allow them to turn on the 64 bit part with a simple BIOS upgrade. All of a sudden, Intel would have an instant installed base of 64 bit chips. This means that if Intel doesn't use AMD's instruction set (I doubt this, as the article says it would be eating crow, they'd never do it), they'd have a good chance of instantly having a huge install base on desktop PCs, and since they are Intel, they could get software companies to follow. In one fell swoop they could win the 64 bit war.
If Athlon 64 doesn't take off, Intel could keep things bottled up untill needed, or even nerver turn it on, letting consumers get 64 bit computing in a future chip that they've had time to improve the instruction set on or something.
It really is an interesting idea, and quite a consipracy theory. Is it true? Who knows! But with all the hub-bub around the Opteron and the upcomming Athlon 64, I wouldn't be suprised if Intel were to drop a bomb like this soon. Just think. Intel first steals AMD's thunder by anouncing the P4EE. Not only is it announced first, but it trounces the competition in benchmarks (this is speculation, I haven't seen any numbers). If the P4EE is fast enough in benchmarks and the price is competitive with the Athlon 64, AMD could be in some trouble. Now if in a few months, Intel announces something like this, AMD's savior that they seem to be betting the farm on could be in BIG TROUBLE. If this happens, AMD's best hope is that Intel DOES use their instruction set, because if they don't things could get very ugly.
So will any of this happen? Who knows! But that can't stop me from speculating! There is one last thing I'll comment on. If Intel does release a 64 bit processor soon, and doesn't use AMD's instruction set, there is a small possiblity that THEY (Intel) could be in trouble if the Athlon 64 (and friends) make a big enough splash. They might come too late to the party to make big decisions (like which instruction set rules).
These things seem a bit more likely, given that Intel seems to be in trouble right now (IMHO). While they are ratcheting up the P4 fast, the fact is that they weren't planning on 64 bits any time soon, AMD has forced the issue on them. If AMD is right, that will put them in trouble. And anyone who follows this kind of stuff knows that Intel has some major heat issues. Current opterons put out what, 70 watts? And some of Intel's upcomming chips are looking at 120 watts during usage (maybe as high as 150 under full load). Between heat, stagnation, and pathetic sales of the Itanic, Intel seems to be in Trouble.
The last thing that I'll say is a message to Intel: when you move to 64 bits (or even if you are just going to stick with 32 for a long time more)... DROP THE NAME PENTIUM. I'm tired of it. There have been FOUR of them (not counting all the different core revisions of each one). I know you have marketed that name for years, but it's time to move on. When will it stop? The Pentium 5, which you might call the Pentium Pentium, or Pentium Squared? Will I have to wait untill the Pentium 17 before you get a new name? Come one guys. Time for a name change.
I thought it was suprising at first. Yes, that is what make is designed to do, but I'd think most people (myself included) think of make as a programming tool. I don't think I would have thought about using make for that job, at least not at first.
This isn't make's intended use (it was designed for programming), so it's a bit suprising to see it used this way at first.
Well, I don't think Bush will veto it. If he has said he would veto this measure (I think I've heard that too, but anyways) I think it's more of a "I'll probably do it because of some little reason, but my mind isn't made up that's just how I'm leaning" kind of thing. Even if it's not, a presidential veto can be overturned. If enough people complained to get the house and senate to go and try to reverse it, they can get a veto over turned. That said, since so many people don't like this legislation, it wouldn't be smart to try to go against it (by vetoing) from a purely political standpoint, especially with an election comming up (although thankfully Bush doesn't just do whatever the polls say, he thinks for himself).
I don't really think we have alot to be worried about. This will get overturned and all semi-right with the world (in regards to FCC policy) will be returned.
PS: For the record, I support Bush. Full disclosure or whatever.
As long as the middle men aren't greedy thugs, it's fine with me. The problem is when the middle men take almost all of the money and only pass on a fraction of the money to the artist. If I pay $20 for a CD, why should the artist only get like $1 of that (made up off the top of my head, FYI)? I don't mind the middle men doing their job, when it doesn't cause ME problems (like not being able to play my so called "cd" in a cd player because it's "copy proof"). When the middle men decide to insinuate that the MP3s which I have, note that I've ripped them off my CDs (which took a LONG time), mean I'm a THEIF when I don't share them and didn't steal them, that's a problem. When the middle men want to use some of their money that they collect to sign and promote artists, I say good for them. Unless they spend nearly all of it to promote a handfull of artists who all sound and look exactly the same (boy bands, for an example).
In short, if the middle men would act halfway decent, I wouldn't have any real beef with them. Instead they are just throwing cows at me as fast as they can (beef, get it? he he he).
I agree. I like the "volatile hyperlinkage" shirt's icon, but I don't want the words "volatile hyperlinkage" on it. Just the logo on the front, the URL on the back. What more do you need?
That said, the one that I like exactly as is is the "soothing green light" one. It sounds like an old soda ad or something.
Slashdot Mirror
As for your Bruce Willis reference, I agree that when that kind of thing happens it's anoying. Like I said, I don't mind a little cursing if it really fits the situation. But the constant cussing is just annoying and juvenile, IMHO.
Also, I'm not a religous nutjob. I'm not terribly religous at all. I'm just tired of being cussed at. I find it INSULTING. It gets on my nerves about just a little more than laugh tracks. Why? Here's why:
Hey networks! I'm smart enough to figure out when to laugh and when people are pissed off without needing laughtracks and cursing.
I can't say it much more plain than that. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but it's not going to hurt you to town down the over-the-top-use-them-as-normal-words-and-in-every -other-sentence cursing that we are speeding head on towards.
First off, I have to say that when it's done decently, I see no problem with product placement. Untill it's like the hot chocolate mix add in the movie "The Truman Show", I don't have a problem. I don't mind if when a guy is drinking a soda on TV it's a REAL Coke can as opposed to something that looks almost exactly like a Coke can but say "Cola" on it or something. As long as the camera doesn't zoom in on it or otherwise notice it, it's fine with me.
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer. "I Love Lucy" was (and still is) a funny show without having to have the characters talk like sailors. There are some situations where I understand it (ER does a good job for the most part) but overall I think there is too much cursing on TV. That famous "7 words you can't say on TV" bit (I think it's George Carlin's?), I think I heard that almost all of those words are allowed now.
I haven't noticed an increase in product placement, which means that if it's happening, they are doing a good job and I don't mind. I'd rather we focus on the cussing.
Sorry guys, that's the facts, IMHO.
The fact that not many people are buying analog modems might have something to do with the price of modems in the first place, but still...
Doesn't seem too bad to me, but I haven't modem shopped in a long time.
That said, just look under the heading "Limits":
There is another paragraph below that with even more info. Reading the first 3 paragraphs does not count as reading the article, you know.
Sorry guys.
All and all, a very interesting idea, even if it's not practicle (low number of devices on a SCSI bus, short cable length, etc). Maybe for a little mini-cluster of PC/104 boards if they had built in SCSI or something...
OK, after a quick googleing, I've found this site. There are others too.
Found it! It was Anandtech. Check out the bottom of the 32 bit vs 64 bit page of the review.
The results? The 64 bit version took nearly HALF THE TIME of the 32 bit version. This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to in some things (MP3s, video encoding, etc).
The Athlon 64 is fast in 32 bit mode, and can beat a P4 many times. But when the 64 bit code comes along, the P4 will be taking one hell of a beating.
PS: Sorry I don't remember which review had this test. I don't have time to go hunting for it right now.
What do you think of the emmese popularity of Gentoo?
What's Linux's greatest failing, how do you intend to fix it?
How hard is it to get your product bundled with PCs (like from Dell, who does sell RH, IIRC)?
What do you think of the Athlon 64?
Can Superman beat the Flash? (*woot monorail*)
OK, so that last one is a little irrelevent, but I was just watching the Simpsons and I couldn't help it.
Allegro Homepage
Slashdot paranoia pays off! Who knew?
Now, this update is NOT FOR G5 OWNERS. That said, does this update basically bring all G3s and G4s to the same as G5s (bugfix and feature/improvement wise, except for 1 or 2 very new ones), or is this above and beyond (since I know that G5s shipped with a newer version of OS X). Thanks.
It would mean more to me to see that for song X, Ogg got a 75% or Real Audio got a 13% against 128kb MP3s than to see that Ogg got a 3.75 and Real Audio got a 0.9.
PS: I made all those numbers up, so don't go checking 'em, it ain't worth your time.
First, I know and listen to some of those songs. It's nice to see band(s) I listen to, it makes the test seem much less... abstract. It seems like these tests usually use music I've never even heard. (For the curious, TMBG and John Linnell).
Second, I would have liked to see the results presented as "quality relative to 128kb MP3", since that's the "gold standard". Just a preference.
... non-Intel (not their X86, not their Xscale, etc)...
Sorry that didn't come out right. Intel isn't going to complain if people move from x86->XScale (they would probably like it because no one else makes XScale processors).
Anyone suprised?
They're Intel. If they suddenly have the lead in the 64 bit game overnight (as might happen depending on adoption rate), then combine that with their clout in the industry, and who knows what they could do. I think they could pull it off. If they announce at 10:00 AM PST that all shipped Presscot processors can now be 64 bit processors with no performance hit (actually a gain) for free (just a BIOS update), I bet they could have MS announcing a update to Windows (or a new version of XP for the processor) that's complete by 11:00 AM.
I think that Intel would try to cram the Itanic instruction set into the desktop before they'd take AMD's instruction set unless they get thouroughly creamed in the market and are forced to just to try to survive.
Actually, it would be Sextium, I think. That said, I'd be a name with sex appeal! OK, in all seriousness, they could go to Septium, Octium (which the Lone Gunmen could steal), or anyting else. They could just go to names that aren't based one numbers (the Ueberterian chip, new for 2k4?). They have options.
If Athlon 64 doesn't take off, Intel could keep things bottled up untill needed, or even nerver turn it on, letting consumers get 64 bit computing in a future chip that they've had time to improve the instruction set on or something.
It really is an interesting idea, and quite a consipracy theory. Is it true? Who knows! But with all the hub-bub around the Opteron and the upcomming Athlon 64, I wouldn't be suprised if Intel were to drop a bomb like this soon. Just think. Intel first steals AMD's thunder by anouncing the P4EE. Not only is it announced first, but it trounces the competition in benchmarks (this is speculation, I haven't seen any numbers). If the P4EE is fast enough in benchmarks and the price is competitive with the Athlon 64, AMD could be in some trouble. Now if in a few months, Intel announces something like this, AMD's savior that they seem to be betting the farm on could be in BIG TROUBLE. If this happens, AMD's best hope is that Intel DOES use their instruction set, because if they don't things could get very ugly.
So will any of this happen? Who knows! But that can't stop me from speculating! There is one last thing I'll comment on. If Intel does release a 64 bit processor soon, and doesn't use AMD's instruction set, there is a small possiblity that THEY (Intel) could be in trouble if the Athlon 64 (and friends) make a big enough splash. They might come too late to the party to make big decisions (like which instruction set rules).
These things seem a bit more likely, given that Intel seems to be in trouble right now (IMHO). While they are ratcheting up the P4 fast, the fact is that they weren't planning on 64 bits any time soon, AMD has forced the issue on them. If AMD is right, that will put them in trouble. And anyone who follows this kind of stuff knows that Intel has some major heat issues. Current opterons put out what, 70 watts? And some of Intel's upcomming chips are looking at 120 watts during usage (maybe as high as 150 under full load). Between heat, stagnation, and pathetic sales of the Itanic, Intel seems to be in Trouble.
The last thing that I'll say is a message to Intel: when you move to 64 bits (or even if you are just going to stick with 32 for a long time more)... DROP THE NAME PENTIUM. I'm tired of it. There have been FOUR of them (not counting all the different core revisions of each one). I know you have marketed that name for years, but it's time to move on. When will it stop? The Pentium 5, which you might call the Pentium Pentium, or Pentium Squared? Will I have to wait untill the Pentium 17 before you get a new name? Come one guys. Time for a name change.
This isn't make's intended use (it was designed for programming), so it's a bit suprising to see it used this way at first.
That said, it does make perfect sense.
That's because its CPU doesn't have Intel's NetBurst technology!
I don't really think we have alot to be worried about. This will get overturned and all semi-right with the world (in regards to FCC policy) will be returned.
PS: For the record, I support Bush. Full disclosure or whatever.
In short, if the middle men would act halfway decent, I wouldn't have any real beef with them. Instead they are just throwing cows at me as fast as they can (beef, get it? he he he).
That said, the one that I like exactly as is is the "soothing green light" one. It sounds like an old soda ad or something.