and slowly bringing it to a boil. Seems like that has been happening all over the world the last few years. Phase things in gradually so people don't notice, but always under false pretence. But what does in it matter to the government? There will never be another revolution of any kind because now they have the technology to stop any kind of uprising (isn't the constitution against the government keeping a standing army?)
As an employer I am legally responsible for the employee's and sub-contractors under me while they are on my job site. That why I have insurance. Now why is this agent of douche-baggery not responsible? Should big companies have different rules than small companies? The big companies already get bail outs when they make stupid decisions. How much is this particular fiasco going to cost taxpayers in the end?
Do you know how long the IPCC report is? It's effing huge. If the worst things the denialists can find after going through it with a fine toothed comb are what amounts to a typo, a misstatement, and a bad calculation, that is amazing. Now replace "IPCC report" with Bible your logic is greatly flawed my friend.
replacement for silica perhaps? The Romans also used pigs blood which helped entrain air in the concrete. It helps protect against the freeze/thaw cycle and incresse the compression strength.
bullshit fibre reinforced is crap and its hard to finish. Bust some rod and then you don't have to worry about crack as long as you have proper relief cuts/expansion joints.
Yay someone with a brain. I'm a concrete finisher and carpenter and you are absolutly right. We leave all our rebar outside for a year or so to rust. When we get a truck of new rebar delivered its "oh shit now we can't use it for a while" and then we find some rusty shit.
It's a bad cover for creationism. Used because of all the completly intolerant people ready to stone anyone who believes in God. It like the Dark ages in reverse.
The law isn't "it is written" The law is "it is as I an appointed official not an elected official says it is because this is democracy and I say so, or else here come the storm troopers"
Then don't watch STAR TREK and miss him all you want. Kirk is my favorite character.
I didn't write this but I wanted to help you out.
on
New MacBook Pros Launched
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Judging computer performance by GHz alone is a common misconception.
The clock speed of a CPU (the GHz) has nothing to do with relative performance of the processor... except when comparing it to other processors in the same product line.
What I mean here is that you cannot compare a 3.0 Ghz Intel P4 to a AMD processor or PowerPC processor - the Ghz means nothing at all...
However, if you compare a 3.0 Ghz Intel P4 with a 2.8 Ghz Intel P4 - THEN you have a valid comparison. The higher clock rate will be generally faster than the lower clock rate. (note that there are workloads where this is not true).
Now, more about the misconception - there are a lot of other factors that affect performance in computers. Processor speed is only one of them. Memory speed and architecture, internal bus speeds, storage technology, and software (OS and application) all contribute heavily to the perceived speed of a computer.
If you take a look at some of the performance-related websites (such as ww.spec.org), you'll see that computers with different CPUs handle different workloads better than others.
A good example for comparison (for an average consumer) is comparing a desktop to a laptop computer. I'll say now that desktops are generally faster than laptops, even at the same clock rate (Ghz). Why, you ask? Well, it's the other components that make the desktop faster. Typically, the disk in a laptop spins at 4200rpm (some are 5400 rpm), where a typical desktop has a 7200 rpm drive. The CD-ROM in a laptop is typically slower than what you find in desktops also.
The idea here is that it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, if the processor is sitting around twiddling it's thumbs while it waits for data from the hard drive/network/memory/whatever.
When it comes to pure speed of the processor, there are several definitions of speed... again, it relates to workload. For example, there's Integer Math speed (see the SPECint2006 benchmark at www.spec.org), Integer Math Rate (throughput - SPECint_rate2006), Floating Point Math speed (SPECfp2006), and Floating Point Math Rate (SPECfp_rate2006). Processors that are great at Integer math may stink at floating point, and vice versa.
Some CPUs are made with bigger, badder math capabilities, others with better I/O throughput. Your choice depends on what you want to do with the computer, and are getting less and less every day as proprietary CPUs (such as PowerPC, Alpha, SPARC, and PA-RISC processors) are dropping by the wayside in favor of cheaper, mass-market Intel and AMD CPUs that are considered "good enough" these days.
About your comment about multi-core CPUs (quad-core vs. Dual-core vs. single-core)... The clock rate is important only if you run a single-threaded application. Such applications will run on only 1 of the cores, and will make a quad-core 2.4Ghz CPU look slower than a single-core P4 @ 3.2 Ghz.
These days, we often do a few things with our computers at a time (download a file, fetch our email, surf the net, etc.) so even a desktop user will see some benefit from a multi-core architecture because it can do more than one thing at a time. The single-core CPU can only execute one program at a time, where the quad-core can execute 4 at a time.
So, being able to execute 4 programs simultaneously at 2.4 Ghz vs. 4 programs one at a time (well, timesliced, they appear to run at the same time) at 3.2 Ghz - you're likely to find that the quad-core gets more done in the same amount of time - so it's "faster", even though it has a lower clock rate.
You can equate this to you and your friends running errands... let say that you need to go to the Supermarket, Sports Authority, Best Buy, and the liquor store - and each are in a different direction from your home (one is north, one is east, one is south, and one is west). You could leave your friends at home and go to the supermarket, then to Sports Authority, then Best Buy, then the Liquor Store OR you could send 3 of your friends, each to one of the stores while you go to the Supermarket. Which will be faster?
after following the link looks to me like a cross between elive and some compiz effects. Apple lost my business after they cheaped out on the hardware. I used to own mac's but what's the point now that they use Intel Core Duo cpu's.
Slashdot Mirror
And this has what to do with anything? Wish I saved a point for you asshole.
and slowly bringing it to a boil.
Seems like that has been happening all over the world the last few years. Phase things in gradually so people don't notice, but always under false pretence. But what does in it matter to the government? There will never be another revolution of any kind because now they have the technology to stop any kind of uprising (isn't the constitution against the government keeping a standing army?)
As an employer I am legally responsible for the employee's and sub-contractors under me while they are on my job site. That why I have insurance. Now why is this agent of douche-baggery not responsible? Should big companies have different rules than small companies? The big companies already get bail outs when they make stupid decisions. How much is this particular fiasco going to cost taxpayers in the end?
Do you know how long the IPCC report is? It's effing huge. If the worst things the denialists can find after going through it with a fine toothed comb are what amounts to a typo, a misstatement, and a bad calculation, that is amazing.
Now replace "IPCC report" with Bible your logic is greatly flawed my friend.
Seems like Apple is getting all the bad publicity now. Aww I miss the good old MS bashing days.
Hey my Mongolian ancestors blew up prenty of walls.
LIME
IRON
SILICA
ALUMINA
replacement for silica perhaps? The Romans also used pigs blood which helped entrain air in the concrete. It helps protect against the freeze/thaw cycle and incresse the compression strength.
bullshit fibre reinforced is crap and its hard to finish. Bust some rod and then you don't have to worry about crack as long as you have proper relief cuts/expansion joints.
Yay someone with a brain. I'm a concrete finisher and carpenter and you are absolutly right. We leave all our rebar outside for a year or so to rust. When we get a truck of new rebar delivered its "oh shit now we can't use it for a while" and then we find some rusty shit.
type 10 when it should have been type 50???
Elohim is used as the Hebrew name (one of the names) for God.
there was nothing and then one day nothing exploded and then there was everything.
Seems as far fetched as creationism.
It's a bad cover for creationism. Used because of all the completly intolerant people ready to stone anyone who believes in God. It like the Dark ages in reverse.
And the FSM has been around for thousands of years too?
Or is the FSM just a stab at Christianity?
How the fuck is this redundant?
The law isn't "it is written"
The law is "it is as I an appointed official not an elected official says it is because this is democracy and I say so, or else here come the storm troopers"
And why is it on Slashdot?
Worst story ever.
Then don't watch STAR TREK and miss him all you want. Kirk is my favorite character.
Judging computer performance by GHz alone is a common misconception. The clock speed of a CPU (the GHz) has nothing to do with relative performance of the processor... except when comparing it to other processors in the same product line. What I mean here is that you cannot compare a 3.0 Ghz Intel P4 to a AMD processor or PowerPC processor - the Ghz means nothing at all... However, if you compare a 3.0 Ghz Intel P4 with a 2.8 Ghz Intel P4 - THEN you have a valid comparison. The higher clock rate will be generally faster than the lower clock rate. (note that there are workloads where this is not true). Now, more about the misconception - there are a lot of other factors that affect performance in computers. Processor speed is only one of them. Memory speed and architecture, internal bus speeds, storage technology, and software (OS and application) all contribute heavily to the perceived speed of a computer. If you take a look at some of the performance-related websites (such as ww.spec.org), you'll see that computers with different CPUs handle different workloads better than others. A good example for comparison (for an average consumer) is comparing a desktop to a laptop computer. I'll say now that desktops are generally faster than laptops, even at the same clock rate (Ghz). Why, you ask? Well, it's the other components that make the desktop faster. Typically, the disk in a laptop spins at 4200rpm (some are 5400 rpm), where a typical desktop has a 7200 rpm drive. The CD-ROM in a laptop is typically slower than what you find in desktops also. The idea here is that it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, if the processor is sitting around twiddling it's thumbs while it waits for data from the hard drive/network/memory/whatever. When it comes to pure speed of the processor, there are several definitions of speed... again, it relates to workload. For example, there's Integer Math speed (see the SPECint2006 benchmark at www.spec.org), Integer Math Rate (throughput - SPECint_rate2006), Floating Point Math speed (SPECfp2006), and Floating Point Math Rate (SPECfp_rate2006). Processors that are great at Integer math may stink at floating point, and vice versa. Some CPUs are made with bigger, badder math capabilities, others with better I/O throughput. Your choice depends on what you want to do with the computer, and are getting less and less every day as proprietary CPUs (such as PowerPC, Alpha, SPARC, and PA-RISC processors) are dropping by the wayside in favor of cheaper, mass-market Intel and AMD CPUs that are considered "good enough" these days. About your comment about multi-core CPUs (quad-core vs. Dual-core vs. single-core)... The clock rate is important only if you run a single-threaded application. Such applications will run on only 1 of the cores, and will make a quad-core 2.4Ghz CPU look slower than a single-core P4 @ 3.2 Ghz. These days, we often do a few things with our computers at a time (download a file, fetch our email, surf the net, etc.) so even a desktop user will see some benefit from a multi-core architecture because it can do more than one thing at a time. The single-core CPU can only execute one program at a time, where the quad-core can execute 4 at a time. So, being able to execute 4 programs simultaneously at 2.4 Ghz vs. 4 programs one at a time (well, timesliced, they appear to run at the same time) at 3.2 Ghz - you're likely to find that the quad-core gets more done in the same amount of time - so it's "faster", even though it has a lower clock rate. You can equate this to you and your friends running errands... let say that you need to go to the Supermarket, Sports Authority, Best Buy, and the liquor store - and each are in a different direction from your home (one is north, one is east, one is south, and one is west). You could leave your friends at home and go to the supermarket, then to Sports Authority, then Best Buy, then the Liquor Store OR you could send 3 of your friends, each to one of the stores while you go to the Supermarket. Which will be faster?
Some sort of MS BS no thanks.
after following the link looks to me like a cross between elive and some compiz effects. Apple lost my business after they cheaped out on the hardware. I used to own mac's but what's the point now that they use Intel Core Duo cpu's.
what does survival of the fittest have to do with intentionally poisoning people? I sure as hell hope you don't work in the medical community.
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-50.asp
Wow you are a moron.
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-50.asp