You should mostly be scared that you feel so indoctrinated by peer pressure or whatever it is that you cannot reconcile that in fact Al Sharpton *may* be the best candidate for you to vote for.
This is a *very* cool idea. Unfortunately, the questions are put forward in a somewhat biased way to begin with. (The very phrase "Corporate Welfare" is very left-wingish.) However, it was fairy good at guess my choices:
1. Green Party 100% 2. Dennis Kucinich 92% 3. Howard Dean 88% 4. John Kerry 82% ... 23. Patrick Buchanon 13% 24. George W. Bush 12% (lol! Beat by Buchanon!)
I consider the top 3 as my main candidates, and don't really consider any other possibility as seriously representative of my views. So for me, the cut off between Howard Dean and John Kerry is actually much more pronounced than this website suggests.
The other problem is that I'm still in a wait and see mode for the top three candidates. Although I feel more aligned with Kucinich, it looks like Dean may be a better public speaker and may be far more capable of actually winning the democractic candidacy. So between these two, I'll see whose campaign looks more serious and choose.
Now, as to a Green Party candidate... I think they *really* have a lot to prove. I voter Nader last time, but was *very* disappointed that they could not get the 5% they needed for federal funding this time around. If the Greens cannot find a way to do better this time, then I think either of the two Democratic Candidates have positions close enough to what I want to support either of them.
But interesting nevertheless. What I want to do is find out who took this survey and actually got one of Bush, John McCain, or Libertarian as their main candidate. If its impossible to get any of those as the output from the form, then I'm not sure I would endorse its credibility.
Every time someone says or writes "post-Sept. 11 world" I am reminded that Al Qaeda's attack was more successful beyond their wildest imagination. I am reminded of our failure to acquire Osama Bin Laden, our failure to create a global unified front against terrorism, our failure to destroy Al Qaeda, and our continued reliance on the FBI, CIA and NSA, who have demonstrated an inability to do anything about these terrorist attacks.
The only way to beat the terrorists, is to show that were will not change as people despite their best efforts. But every time I read or hear that phrase -- its like we are *complicit* in wanting Al Qaeda to win.
Actually Crafty is not as good as Fritz, Hiarcs, Rebel, Junior, Shredder, or Tiger. I doubt its as strong as "The King" or even ChessMaster. Sorry dude, but I *do* know what I am talking about.
To be a legal SPEC submission, all the compiler tols used must be made publicly available. The AIX tools, and cross over libraries used specifically for the purpose of making Mac binaries may be proprietary, and hence cannot be used for Spec (read the rules.)
If you look at SPECint2000, you will find an integer benchmark called 'crafty'. This is a chess simulator with code sequences that are probably similar to what this guy used.
No, its not. Crafty is a notoriously *bad* chess program. There is good reason to believe that its inner loops are not representative of other more serious chess programs.
While the MD5 checking algorithm is pretty cool, aren't we forgetting that the point here that IBM has access to *both* source trees? Can't IBM just do a straight line by line diff themselves? I.e., can't IBM settle this once and for all by themselves? (After all isn't that what SCO did?)
Actually no, nobody has ever rooted for the geek kid out of Redmond. They were rooting for the hackers in Cupertino, the geek from Redmond just pulled a fast one on everyone.
Intel sells a tool called "VTune". It includes a java profiler. If you want to know why a particular Java application is slow or not profile it and found out the answer for yourself.
That's the problem with the whole graphics industry consolidation. All of the various cheater developers that worked for graphics card companies spread around all now work for one of the two remaining serious graphics players.
AMD is different, in that they are not a totally isolationist kind of company like Intel. Intel does not share its fab technology with anyone, and has sued every company that has ever made an x86 ISA CPU.
Its called "Hyper Transport", and its AMD's technology that they are *giving* to Apple. It could be just that AMD is getting the AirPort business in exchange. Who knows. (AMD has been giving this technology to *many* companies, not the least of which is nVidia.)
This is probably where the "Apple is going to use x86 CPUs in their PCs" rumours start from.
Since he claims its new, but he actually is incapable of thinking something new, its probably not really new. More likely he's just combining old elements from the past.
I.e., its probably a combination of more that one of the most hated and/or over used Trekkie elements: time travel, holodeck, Q, the Borg.
Don't give Berman/Pillar and credit, they don't deserve it.
I am under the distinct impression that Microsoft had very little influence in any part of the x86-64 design.
Listen to the talk about x86-64 given by Kevin McGrath.. I certainly got the impression, from that talk, that this is a purely AMD design with maybe a suggestion here and there thrown in by the Microsoft and Linux community.
(This is very much *unlike* Itanium, where it is my impression that HP had a *large* amount of influence on the ISA design.)
The AMD migration path will allow you to mix 32 and 64 bit applications, and even portions of the same application can use a non-homogeneous number of bits. With Itanium, migration is painful, expensive, and difficult to do completely. With Operton, migration can happen transparently.
I think from the *user's* point of view, this will be an easy decision.
Slashdot Mirror
You should mostly be scared that you feel so indoctrinated by peer pressure or whatever it is that you cannot reconcile that in fact Al Sharpton *may* be the best candidate for you to vote for.
This is a *very* cool idea. Unfortunately, the questions are put forward in a somewhat biased way to begin with. (The very phrase "Corporate Welfare" is very left-wingish.) However, it was fairy good at guess my choices:
...
... I think they *really* have a lot to prove. I voter Nader last time, but was *very* disappointed that they could not get the 5% they needed for federal funding this time around. If the Greens cannot find a way to do better this time, then I think either of the two Democratic Candidates have positions close enough to what I want to support either of them.
1. Green Party 100%
2. Dennis Kucinich 92%
3. Howard Dean 88%
4. John Kerry 82%
23. Patrick Buchanon 13%
24. George W. Bush 12% (lol! Beat by Buchanon!)
I consider the top 3 as my main candidates, and don't really consider any other possibility as seriously representative of my views. So for me, the cut off between Howard Dean and John Kerry is actually much more pronounced than this website suggests.
The other problem is that I'm still in a wait and see mode for the top three candidates. Although I feel more aligned with Kucinich, it looks like Dean may be a better public speaker and may be far more capable of actually winning the democractic candidacy. So between these two, I'll see whose campaign looks more serious and choose.
Now, as to a Green Party candidate
But interesting nevertheless. What I want to do is find out who took this survey and actually got one of Bush, John McCain, or Libertarian as their main candidate. If its impossible to get any of those as the output from the form, then I'm not sure I would endorse its credibility.
Every time someone says or writes "post-Sept. 11 world" I am reminded that Al Qaeda's attack was more successful beyond their wildest imagination. I am reminded of our failure to acquire Osama Bin Laden, our failure to create a global unified front against terrorism, our failure to destroy Al Qaeda, and our continued reliance on the FBI, CIA and NSA, who have demonstrated an inability to do anything about these terrorist attacks.
The only way to beat the terrorists, is to show that were will not change as people despite their best efforts. But every time I read or hear that phrase -- its like we are *complicit* in wanting Al Qaeda to win.
*BANG*, Ludicrast Kill!
*BANG*, HOLY SHIT!! (removed in the latest patch, BTW)
Actually Crafty is not as good as Fritz, Hiarcs, Rebel, Junior, Shredder, or Tiger. I doubt its as strong as "The King" or even ChessMaster. Sorry dude, but I *do* know what I am talking about.
To be a legal SPEC submission, all the compiler tols used must be made publicly available. The AIX tools, and cross over libraries used specifically for the purpose of making Mac binaries may be proprietary, and hence cannot be used for Spec (read the rules.)
- If you look at SPECint2000, you will find an integer benchmark called 'crafty'. This is a chess simulator with code sequences that are probably similar to what this guy used.
No, its not. Crafty is a notoriously *bad* chess program. There is good reason to believe that its inner loops are not representative of other more serious chess programs.Yeah, right after Google releases their code.
/ 030514-ee380-100.asx
Its not code, but their algorithm has been quite well described here:
http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380
And here:
http://murl.microsoft.com/LectureDetails.asp?993
While the MD5 checking algorithm is pretty cool, aren't we forgetting that the point here that IBM has access to *both* source trees? Can't IBM just do a straight line by line diff themselves? I.e., can't IBM settle this once and for all by themselves? (After all isn't that what SCO did?)
Actually no, nobody has ever rooted for the geek kid out of Redmond. They were rooting for the hackers in Cupertino, the geek from Redmond just pulled a fast one on everyone.
If they are not, then I will be highly unimpressed if there are for identical /*'s and 40 identical */'s in the code.
If the random number distribution is a memoriless one, then it does not matter. Classic american innumeracy, and it got modded up ...
Intel sells a tool called "VTune". It includes a java profiler. If you want to know why a particular Java application is slow or not profile it and found out the answer for yourself.
Yeah, I believe it was IIT. I obtained a patent on an algorithm which uses the idea of this cheat in a legitimate way:
T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5883640.WKU.&OS=PN/5883640&RS=PN/ 5883640
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
Well actually, they have.
That's the problem with the whole graphics industry consolidation. All of the various cheater developers that worked for graphics card companies spread around all now work for one of the two remaining serious graphics players.
AMD is different, in that they are not a totally isolationist kind of company like Intel. Intel does not share its fab technology with anyone, and has sued every company that has ever made an x86 ISA CPU.
Its called "Hyper Transport", and its AMD's technology that they are *giving* to Apple. It could be just that AMD is getting the AirPort business in exchange. Who knows. (AMD has been giving this technology to *many* companies, not the least of which is nVidia.)
This is probably where the "Apple is going to use x86 CPUs in their PCs" rumours start from.
- Windows Media Player for the Mac (they need a better name for that app) works, but feels like quick and dirty port...
No big surprise, it feels that way under Windows as well.Bizarre -- I've already bought and finished both games. Not bad, just kind of short.
Since he claims its new, but he actually is incapable of thinking something new, its probably not really new. More likely he's just combining old elements from the past.
I.e., its probably a combination of more that one of the most hated and/or over used Trekkie elements: time travel, holodeck, Q, the Borg.
Don't give Berman/Pillar and credit, they don't deserve it.
Its much better at finding server-centric applications to benchmark:
Ace's Hardware Review
You will find both methods, and other spam related things, described on a web page on the subject I created in 1997.
I am under the distinct impression that Microsoft had very little influence in any part of the x86-64 design.
Listen to the talk about x86-64 given by Kevin McGrath.. I certainly got the impression, from that talk, that this is a purely AMD design with maybe a suggestion here and there thrown in by the Microsoft and Linux community.
(This is very much *unlike* Itanium, where it is my impression that HP had a *large* amount of influence on the ISA design.)
The AMD migration path will allow you to mix 32 and 64 bit applications, and even portions of the same application can use a non-homogeneous number of bits. With Itanium, migration is painful, expensive, and difficult to do completely. With Operton, migration can happen transparently.
I think from the *user's* point of view, this will be an easy decision.
When I think of Al Gore and Apple together, why do the words "Runner Up" keep coming to mind?