I'm glad ONE single member of Congress had the guts to say, "I'm as hurt by this as everyone else; I love this country as much as anyone does; and I'm voting according to my best judgment to this country the best leadership that I am capable of giving."
Those other reps who were "With her 99% but didn't want to look soft on terrorism" are hypocrites. Damn every single spineless one of them. I have more respect for those who followed their hearts and voted for war or against than these wishy-washy wimps.
From what I have heard, every possible Democrat group went down to Florida and did their own recount and guess what..... GWB really won.
It's not that simple. Partisan bias aside (and don't try to pretend yours isn't showing), it would be more accurate to say that the outcome of the recount depends entirely on which of several totally arbitrary sets of rules you apply, regardless of who does the counting. However, I believe it is in the best interest of the country for most people to think that W won the recount, regardless of what the truth really is.
No religion with any significant number of followers advocates this sort of violence. Hatred is responsible for these crimes, and all who hide their behind any mantle of religion are traitors to the very religion they pretend to support. They are either liars or frauds.
No true Christian could ever possibly bomb a hospital. No true Muslim could ever possibly commit a terrorist act. Anyone who would do such a thing is a murderer, not a Muslim or Christian. The two concepts are not mutually compatible.
In order to end the senseless killing, we as a society need to do two things: Stop teaching hate, and effectively deal with mental illness. No other remedy will succeed. Well, maybe one other. We can always exterminate ourselves.
Think about it. What is the one thing nukes are good for? Killing tens upon tens of thousands of innocent civilians. What do we deplore most? We aren't going to stoop to their level.
"Are there Eco-Terrorists and other extreme-left-wing types that are sick enough to do something like this?"
Absolutely, positively not. Left-wingers are by definition compassionate people who place an extremely high value on life. Only right-wingers could possibly be evil enough to have done this.
I pretty much agree with everything doug363 said. I'll sum it up: Bigger, not faster. The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit chips is the chunks are bigger. If a 32-bit chip is juggling tennis balls, the 64-bit chip is juggling softballs. In a given amount of time, both chips toss about the same number of balls; the 64-bit ones just represent bigger numbers. That's it.
You can do 64-bit computation with a 32-bit chip, but then you _do_ take a huge performance hit. If you're not trying to fake a 32-bit processor into doing 64-bit computation (i.e., you're programming each processor in its native mode), then from the programmer's perspective it's exactly the same.
If it sounds like I'm trying to downplay the benefit of 64-bit chips, I am. The only time you benefit from a 64-bit architecture is when you need to use really huge numbers (e.g., scientific or cryptographic computing) or access really huge data (e.g., databases and suchlike).
Fortunately for makers of 64-bit chips, there are a lot of scientists and databases out there.
Among the touted benfits of Forth and the stack machine architecture are compact code size and high performance. However, you don't necessarily want to reduce the utility of an op to the point where it becomes a burden. The X18 may achieve 2400 MOPS, but when it requires 125 of them to do a multiply, performance can drop in a hurry -- and code size inflates.
The 0-operand instruction set architecture appears to be credited as the primary enabler of the benefits cited above. Yet I wonder whether the stack becomes a bottleneck. The X18 web page states, "An address register is useful to reduce stack manipulation. It also supports incrementing to address successive words in memory. Similar use of the top of the return stack provides 2 addresses for memory-memory moves." This sounds to me like a tacit admission that having only a stack for operands is problematic. From the table of opcodes listed, it looks to me like over half of the instructions in the X18 architecture just push data around -- and duplicating instructions for the address register, return stack, and data stack really sort of belies the claim of 0-operand instructions; as I see it, the operand is just encoded into the instruction.
In light of the above, I am led to wonder: How much of its time does the X18 or X25 spend manipulating the stack? How does this impact performance, code size, and programmer effort relative to an equivalent program hand-coded in assembly language or C for an architecture that uses general-purpose registers? How about Forth built for a GPR architecture? You appear to agree that more than one addressable operand register is needed. What is the right number?
Imagine schools full of hungry children (and their parents) in lands you've never heard of, sitting in front of old 486dx4/100's and blurry 15", 60-Hz monitors with lizards crawling on them, forced by ruthless and corrupt local party bosses to play EQ under the watchful glares of stern proctors for 16 hours per day, with only 1 potty break and 10 minutes for lunch. Their "english lessons" consisting of entreaties to other players ("your buy nice char. is my $200 at ebay"), their "math lessons" calculating the boss-man's cut in the local currency ($200 x 0.9 x 630 yb/$ = 113,400 yb).
Slot machine Trivia! Many people say they don't like slot machines with "virtual reels" displayed on a computer screen because "that
computer thing can cheat". They say they prefer the "mechanical" slot machines with real spinning reels. Well, guess what? Computers
run all slot machines just the same and have since the 1970s (analog logic back then). The only difference is the ones with reels, are
controlled by stepper motors and told to stop on the sybbols picked when the compuer finished playing that game a few seconds ago. The
added randomized "spin time" and non-uniform stopping of the reels is just to please the player. The reels stop exactly where told to by
the CPU.
I hope you don't mean that as a criticism. A slot machine is, after all, an entertainment device. If people are entertained by moving machinery, then it is a good thing that there exist slot machines with wheels in them. I can well understand that such a machine may offer a more complete sensory experience than a CRT, even if it is more limited in some of its capabilities. People like things that they can hold in their hands (or at least believe they could hold in their hands, given access to the innards). People are analog critters. There's a bitmap of a clock face with moving hands in the corner of my screen right now. I say, "Bravo!" to the game designers who put physical interfaces on electronic games. Keep up the good work!
"But both YellowDog and LinuxPPC allow you to easily remap keys to mouse buttons."
Actually, I've been having a lot of trouble with that (LinuxPPC 2000, 604e, ADB, Gnome). Can you post a link to a solution that actually works? That would be mucho appreciated.
64 MB? 128? Wow... 256 MB is about $40 these days. I advise you to require all of your coworkers to upgrade immediately. You will want at least 512 MB in your Mac, of course.:-)
This may be hard for some/. readers to believe, but there does come a time in life when you don't just need a fast, loud and cheap box. You can argue specs and benchmarks all day long, but you cannot convince me that 99% of PCs aren't ugly. When I'm shopping for a system, well-designed boxes like the iMac and G4 Cube rank high on my list because they work well, look good, and are quiet.
What do I mean by work well? I mean when I add a new piece of hardware or software to the mix, I expect it to work on the first try. It doesn't always happen, but I expect it. Nearly every application works in a predictable way. The OS doesn't interfere with me getting my job done. The system is well thought out, reliable, and easy to maintain. Macs don't have CMOS or Plug-n-Pray; that alone should be worth an extra $50.
Looking good is, of course, subjective. But Apple certainly does have a flair for enclosures that are different from the usual beige box, even if not everyone agrees that they are easy on the eyes. I happen to think the 20th Anniversary Mac is one of the slickest looking pieces of electronic goodness ever, and I don't care that it has only 2 PCI slots. I get a kick out of just looking at a TAM, even when it's off. It's worth something to me fill my environment with items that please to the senses, and Macs do that. Okay, so they don't smell like anything; you know what I mean.
Finally, the ears ringing issue. Sure, you can buy quieter parts for PCs, but why should I have to build my own system - and pay extra for special 'quiet' components - just because I want a little peace?
I have 2 PCs at home, and they are fast, loud, and cheap. Either one of them makes more noise than any 4 Macs put together (I have verified this empirically). Their razor-sharp sheet-metal cases are held together by about a million little screws (no two the same size), and only a contortionist can add RAM to them. Their PCI backplanes align poorly with their cases, making it difficult to add cards. Once cards are added, they seem to be too stupid to tell Linux what their capabilities are. Their hardware clocks gain or lose minutes per day. In short, they are crap. If they weren't fast and cheap, I would want absolutely nothing to do with them.
I don't mind having the occasional PC running Linux in the server closet. But when it comes to a workstation I have to sit in front of, give me a Mac every time. Apple sweats the details; PC companies don't. It shows in every aspect of the system. I can't sit down in front of a PC without thinking about how Apple would have done it better. Macs are nice to be around and feel good to use. I'm willing to pay a little extra to put Apple's elegance in front of me.
I'm not a starving student anymore. I don't want my environment to resemble a college student's hand-me-downs. I decorate my house with attractive works of art and furniture, and I decorate my computing life with a Mac.
If quality mattered, we'd have MENSA MEMBERS and ETHICS SPECIALISTS in our elected offices, and we'd pay attention to the legislation that they offered.
The overwhelming majority of Slashdot readers are smart enough to be in Mensa. Do you want the world run by Anonymous Coward?;-)
"(most of the users here give the impressoin that they have been using Linux from 1.0.0)"
Those are the guys who weren't even born when Linus got fed up with Minix. I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of/. readers (myself included) started using Linux well after kernel v2.0 -- if they even use it at all.
The one or two people who say, "Back when we used to DL the v0.91 sources onto floppies,..." do so because they know nobody else can.:-)
Let me unequivocally state that the Internet is one among a small integer number of the greatest things that ever happened to me. I am absolutely convinced that the Internet is the single most important technological development in the last quarter century (yes, I know it began over 30 years ago; cut me some slack here).
The Internet has revolutionized the way I get information. I have faster access to better information about things than ever before.
The Internet has revoltionized the way I buy things. I wouldn't dream of making a major purchase without first consulting the 'Net to see what other people (often real consumer testamonials) think of my leading choices.
The Internet has revolutionized my social life. Now I never see daylight.;-) Seriously, though, my best friends are never more than a few clicks away. Because the 'Net is close to all of us, it's much easier to assemble a bigger group of friends to pal around in real time. Because it is geographically distributed, I have friends that I talk to regularly on at least three continents, in eight or more countries. My 'Net entertainment is also much more intellectually engaging than television or movies.
Finally, the Internet has tremendously improved my real social life. I have met literally (note proper use of the term) hundreds of my 'Net friends and aquaintances offline. The 'Net gave me an excuse to spend a week in Disney World. Most of my friends (with whom I meet daily or weekly) I first met online. I go to real-world parties with 10 or more of my Internet buddies at least five times a year.
If anyone else has a comparable endorsement of the 'Net, let's see it and get the word out! The 'Net is here to stay, hurray!
So spend the $20 and get a f'cking two-button mouse. Damn! Get over it already. At least Apple's f'cking one-button mouse doesn't cause RSIs like some of the cheap-ass 2-button mice I've had to use. Wake up, smell the f'cking coffee, get a grip, and just accept that no matter which computer you buy, you'll probably have to buy a new mouse for it because the manufacturer's choice is crap.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad ONE single member of Congress had the guts to say, "I'm as hurt by this as everyone else; I love this country as much as anyone does; and I'm voting according to my best judgment to this country the best leadership that I am capable of giving."
Those other reps who were "With her 99% but didn't want to look soft on terrorism" are hypocrites. Damn every single spineless one of them. I have more respect for those who followed their hearts and voted for war or against than these wishy-washy wimps.
From what I have heard, every possible Democrat group went down to Florida and did their own recount and guess what..... GWB really won.
It's not that simple. Partisan bias aside (and don't try to pretend yours isn't showing), it would be more accurate to say that the outcome of the recount depends entirely on which of several totally arbitrary sets of rules you apply, regardless of who does the counting. However, I believe it is in the best interest of the country for most people to think that W won the recount, regardless of what the truth really is.
No religion with any significant number of followers advocates this sort of violence. Hatred is responsible for these crimes, and all who hide their behind any mantle of religion are traitors to the very religion they pretend to support. They are either liars or frauds.
No true Christian could ever possibly bomb a hospital. No true Muslim could ever possibly commit a terrorist act. Anyone who would do such a thing is a murderer, not a Muslim or Christian. The two concepts are not mutually compatible.
In order to end the senseless killing, we as a society need to do two things: Stop teaching hate, and effectively deal with mental illness. No other remedy will succeed. Well, maybe one other. We can always exterminate ourselves.
Think about it. What is the one thing nukes are good for? Killing tens upon tens of thousands of innocent civilians. What do we deplore most? We aren't going to stoop to their level.
"Are there Eco-Terrorists and other extreme-left-wing types that are sick enough to do something like this?"
Absolutely, positively not. Left-wingers are by definition compassionate people who place an extremely high value on life. Only right-wingers could possibly be evil enough to have done this.
(What on earth did I mean by that?)
I pretty much agree with everything doug363 said. I'll sum it up: Bigger, not faster. The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit chips is the chunks are bigger. If a 32-bit chip is juggling tennis balls, the 64-bit chip is juggling softballs. In a given amount of time, both chips toss about the same number of balls; the 64-bit ones just represent bigger numbers. That's it.
You can do 64-bit computation with a 32-bit chip, but then you _do_ take a huge performance hit. If you're not trying to fake a 32-bit processor into doing 64-bit computation (i.e., you're programming each processor in its native mode), then from the programmer's perspective it's exactly the same.
If it sounds like I'm trying to downplay the benefit of 64-bit chips, I am. The only time you benefit from a 64-bit architecture is when you need to use really huge numbers (e.g., scientific or cryptographic computing) or access really huge data (e.g., databases and suchlike).
Fortunately for makers of 64-bit chips, there are a lot of scientists and databases out there.
Among the touted benfits of Forth and the stack machine architecture are compact code size and high performance. However, you don't necessarily want to reduce the utility of an op to the point where it becomes a burden. The X18 may achieve 2400 MOPS, but when it requires 125 of them to do a multiply, performance can drop in a hurry -- and code size inflates.
The 0-operand instruction set architecture appears to be credited as the primary enabler of the benefits cited above. Yet I wonder whether the stack becomes a bottleneck. The X18 web page states, "An address register is useful to reduce stack manipulation. It also supports incrementing to address successive words in memory. Similar use of the top of the return stack provides 2 addresses for memory-memory moves." This sounds to me like a tacit admission that having only a stack for operands is problematic. From the table of opcodes listed, it looks to me like over half of the instructions in the X18 architecture just push data around -- and duplicating instructions for the address register, return stack, and data stack really sort of belies the claim of 0-operand instructions; as I see it, the operand is just encoded into the instruction.
In light of the above, I am led to wonder: How much of its time does the X18 or X25 spend manipulating the stack? How does this impact performance, code size, and programmer effort relative to an equivalent program hand-coded in assembly language or C for an architecture that uses general-purpose registers? How about Forth built for a GPR architecture? You appear to agree that more than one addressable operand register is needed. What is the right number?
Imagine schools full of hungry children (and their parents) in lands you've never heard of, sitting in front of old 486dx4/100's and blurry 15", 60-Hz monitors with lizards crawling on them, forced by ruthless and corrupt local party bosses to play EQ under the watchful glares of stern proctors for 16 hours per day, with only 1 potty break and 10 minutes for lunch. Their "english lessons" consisting of entreaties to other players ("your buy nice char. is my $200 at ebay"), their "math lessons" calculating the boss-man's cut in the local currency ($200 x 0.9 x 630 yb/$ = 113,400 yb).
"Then, at Be, Jobs snubbed him [Gassee] (with good reason) by going with NeXT."
:-)
Jobs couldn't have snubbed him. Jobs was at NeXT, not Apple. If anyone, Amelio did the snubbing.
"This roundtable is like getting B'nai B'rith, Winston Churchill and Jesse Jackson around a table to discuss Goebbels."
Godwin's law: you lose.
Slot machine Trivia! Many people say they don't like slot machines with "virtual reels" displayed on a computer screen because "that computer thing can cheat". They say they prefer the "mechanical" slot machines with real spinning reels. Well, guess what? Computers run all slot machines just the same and have since the 1970s (analog logic back then). The only difference is the ones with reels, are controlled by stepper motors and told to stop on the sybbols picked when the compuer finished playing that game a few seconds ago. The added randomized "spin time" and non-uniform stopping of the reels is just to please the player. The reels stop exactly where told to by the CPU.
I hope you don't mean that as a criticism. A slot machine is, after all, an entertainment device. If people are entertained by moving machinery, then it is a good thing that there exist slot machines with wheels in them. I can well understand that such a machine may offer a more complete sensory experience than a CRT, even if it is more limited in some of its capabilities. People like things that they can hold in their hands (or at least believe they could hold in their hands, given access to the innards). People are analog critters. There's a bitmap of a clock face with moving hands in the corner of my screen right now. I say, "Bravo!" to the game designers who put physical interfaces on electronic games. Keep up the good work!
"But both YellowDog and LinuxPPC allow you to easily remap keys to mouse buttons."
Actually, I've been having a lot of trouble with that (LinuxPPC 2000, 604e, ADB, Gnome). Can you post a link to a solution that actually works? That would be mucho appreciated.
64 MB? 128? Wow... 256 MB is about $40 these days. I advise you to require all of your coworkers to upgrade immediately. You will want at least 512 MB in your Mac, of course. :-)
How much RAM do you have, how much do they have, and how big are the .ps files? If they're hitting the disk, that could make a huge difference.
There are plenty of cross platform apps which can potentially be used for benchmarking both PPC and x86 computers. Here's a short list:
* d.net rc5-64
From the distributed.net client speed page:
I guess we've settled the issue of Mhz vs. performance once and for all. ;-)
... why doesn't yours?
I do not use the mouse that came with my PC; why should I use the mouse that came with my Mac?
"PCs running Windows are faster, better made, more reliable and make you thinner and smarter as well."
I want to be thinner and smarter, Rev. Matt! Show me the way, the way to Redmond, the way to Bill, amen!
This may be hard for some /. readers to believe, but there does come a time in life when you don't just need a fast, loud and cheap box. You can argue specs and benchmarks all day long, but you cannot convince me that 99% of PCs aren't ugly. When I'm shopping for a system, well-designed boxes like the iMac and G4 Cube rank high on my list because they work well, look good, and are quiet.
What do I mean by work well? I mean when I add a new piece of hardware or software to the mix, I expect it to work on the first try. It doesn't always happen, but I expect it. Nearly every application works in a predictable way. The OS doesn't interfere with me getting my job done. The system is well thought out, reliable, and easy to maintain. Macs don't have CMOS or Plug-n-Pray; that alone should be worth an extra $50.
Looking good is, of course, subjective. But Apple certainly does have a flair for enclosures that are different from the usual beige box, even if not everyone agrees that they are easy on the eyes. I happen to think the 20th Anniversary Mac is one of the slickest looking pieces of electronic goodness ever, and I don't care that it has only 2 PCI slots. I get a kick out of just looking at a TAM, even when it's off. It's worth something to me fill my environment with items that please to the senses, and Macs do that. Okay, so they don't smell like anything; you know what I mean.
Finally, the ears ringing issue. Sure, you can buy quieter parts for PCs, but why should I have to build my own system - and pay extra for special 'quiet' components - just because I want a little peace?
I have 2 PCs at home, and they are fast, loud, and cheap. Either one of them makes more noise than any 4 Macs put together (I have verified this empirically). Their razor-sharp sheet-metal cases are held together by about a million little screws (no two the same size), and only a contortionist can add RAM to them. Their PCI backplanes align poorly with their cases, making it difficult to add cards. Once cards are added, they seem to be too stupid to tell Linux what their capabilities are. Their hardware clocks gain or lose minutes per day. In short, they are crap. If they weren't fast and cheap, I would want absolutely nothing to do with them.
I don't mind having the occasional PC running Linux in the server closet. But when it comes to a workstation I have to sit in front of, give me a Mac every time. Apple sweats the details; PC companies don't. It shows in every aspect of the system. I can't sit down in front of a PC without thinking about how Apple would have done it better. Macs are nice to be around and feel good to use. I'm willing to pay a little extra to put Apple's elegance in front of me.
I'm not a starving student anymore. I don't want my environment to resemble a college student's hand-me-downs. I decorate my house with attractive works of art and furniture, and I decorate my computing life with a Mac.
If quality mattered, we'd have MENSA MEMBERS and ETHICS SPECIALISTS in our elected offices, and we'd pay attention to the legislation that they offered.
The overwhelming majority of Slashdot readers are smart enough to be in Mensa. Do you want the world run by Anonymous Coward? ;-)
A.k.a., "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach"
"(most of the users here give the impressoin that they have been using Linux from 1.0.0)"
/. readers (myself included) started using Linux well after kernel v2.0 -- if they even use it at all.
..." do so because they know nobody else can. :-)
Those are the guys who weren't even born when Linus got fed up with Minix. I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of
The one or two people who say, "Back when we used to DL the v0.91 sources onto floppies,
"There's no reason the big fuel makers can't also dominate the production of alternative energy as well."
Oh, they will. But what's the hurry? There's still plenty of profit in petroleum.
Let me unequivocally state that the Internet is one among a small integer number of the greatest things that ever happened to me. I am absolutely convinced that the Internet is the single most important technological development in the last quarter century (yes, I know it began over 30 years ago; cut me some slack here).
;-) Seriously, though, my best friends are never more than a few clicks away. Because the 'Net is close to all of us, it's much easier to assemble a bigger group of friends to pal around in real time. Because it is geographically distributed, I have friends that I talk to regularly on at least three continents, in eight or more countries. My 'Net entertainment is also much more intellectually engaging than television or movies.
The Internet has revolutionized the way I get information. I have faster access to better information about things than ever before.
The Internet has revoltionized the way I buy things. I wouldn't dream of making a major purchase without first consulting the 'Net to see what other people (often real consumer testamonials) think of my leading choices.
The Internet has revolutionized my social life. Now I never see daylight.
Finally, the Internet has tremendously improved my real social life. I have met literally (note proper use of the term) hundreds of my 'Net friends and aquaintances offline. The 'Net gave me an excuse to spend a week in Disney World. Most of my friends (with whom I meet daily or weekly) I first met online. I go to real-world parties with 10 or more of my Internet buddies at least five times a year.
If anyone else has a comparable endorsement of the 'Net, let's see it and get the word out! The 'Net is here to stay, hurray!
So spend the $20 and get a f'cking two-button mouse. Damn! Get over it already. At least Apple's f'cking one-button mouse doesn't cause RSIs like some of the cheap-ass 2-button mice I've had to use. Wake up, smell the f'cking coffee, get a grip, and just accept that no matter which computer you buy, you'll probably have to buy a new mouse for it because the manufacturer's choice is crap.
AC/Delco is tied to GM.
Motorcraft is tied to Ford.
Mopar is tied to Chrysler.
Who's tied to the other auto makers?