Blech. Those things do something nasty to the inside of my nose. The scent that they generate sticks around after breathing near one for hours. If I walk into a room with one, I can tell, and I leave. Of course I can also smell a male cat from 100 yards, so I can see how most people may not have the same problem... It's too bad though. I can't shop at places that sell the "ionic breeze" anymore.
They burn it when they brew it, not when they roast it I think. Go get some beans (their french roast is my favorite) and brew it yourself. It's as dark as it gets, but it's not burnt. It's very smooth and just a touch smokey like a french roast should be.
Either way, a cup you brew at home tastes *way better* than what they serve in the shop.
That's rediculous. An informed compiler can take all the CPI numbers, cache sizes, branch prediction probabilities, and other CPU specific features into account and generate code that is truly optimal in most situations. 99 times out of 100 (or more) a good modern compiler is going to generate code that is as good or better than a top-notch assembly programmer as long as the algorithms in the high level code are the same as the ones that would be used by the assembly programmer.
You have to remember that this report has been filtered through a reporter. My guess? It says something like "the system has three processors and is based on IBM's PPC970 architecture".
I'd be surprised if it actually had 3 PPC970s in it. One is probably more than enough to drive the video hardware it'll have. It's not likely to be CPU bound in many cases. More likely the three CPUs will be the main 970, the "GPU" and some other co-processor.
Why would he want that? Seems to me he wants us to believe that things went well and we're practically ready to get out of there. He wants us to believe we were bringers of good. At least that's what you'd think he wants based on his actions.
That's the correct spelling, by they way. Not speach)
Yes yes, I had one typo. Sue me.
I never said anything about an end-users contemplation of speech. I was discussing efforts by the government to chill both the initial expression of alternative views and the reception of such views. Taking away the privacy of end-users has been seen as a method of preventing the dissemination of alternative views.
You assume that the government isn't an "end-user". You assume that investigation of an individual based on what they say should chill the expression. You assume that you are entitled to both the ability to express your opinions, and they freedom from judgement based on those opinions at the same time, no matter what the forum. The reason your assumptions are flawed seems to stem from your assumtion that people have privacy in public in the first place, which would be a requirement to have it taken away, now wouldn't it.
Furthermore, why do you think the government is a special case in this scenario? Can't a private organization have the same chilling effect given enough will? How can you prevent that while giving them the same guarantees?
As for politicians, they are public individuals specificaly and expressly trying to share their views with the public and explicitly attempting to tie their views to their public persona.
Really, so once you're a politician you no longer have the right to privacy in any forum? Since when? Politicians are still individuals, and as such have the same rights as any other individual. For example:
slightly different from a private citizen trying to respond to a/. posting and so afraid of repercussions that they AC it.
How can you be so sure that there aren't any politicians posting on slashdot as AC. Do you think that they should be required not to?
And finally:
Silly Mr. Bork.
A loose association between the thoughts of two people on a single issue do not tie them together on every position in any way. This sort of "loose logic" is exactly the thing that makes your original post in this thread absolutly outlandish. It's a childish tactic. Grow up.
That's why you three favor federal regulation of contraception, favor federal regulations concerning private sexual matters between married couples in the privacy of their own homes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I favor no such things beyond the current practice of requiring a prescription for certain forms of chemical contraception.
you and your pal Scalia are two of the only folks around who don't recognize the Privacy elements intrinsic to the Constitution
Show me a Supreme Court case (or any implied reference in the US Constitution) that limits how you are allowed to contemplate speach you've heard in a public forum in any way much less in the specific systematic way you've described. Face it, once it's out there, and everybody gets to think about it what they may. Any other expectations are unreasonable.
The attempt by government agencies to chill free speech by their intimidation attempts is far more objectionable
Do you prefer a double standard, or would you like the same rules you seem to propose to be applied to you? If so, you'd be the only person I know who would be against the collection and analysis of statements made by, say, politicians.
Based on what you've said, you get to take your pick: are you a hypocrite or an idiot?
If the analysis of your speech (by anybody, the government is no different) "chills" your desire to speak up, then maybe the problem is with what you're saying or your resolve to say it, and not with the government. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having people disagree with you, or freedom from having people judge you based on your statements. In fact it means exactly the opposite.
Don't pretend for a second that you didn't make an enormous leap when you went from:
Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights have every word they read or write be marked down and poured over by government agents?
Where the only thing objectionable about it is the probable waste of money, and:
Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights be forced to prove their loyalty to the current administration and be detained indefinitely if they are incapable of expressing the proper amount of shock and awe?
Where you suggest that their speech isn't really free.
Here's the facts of life: Free speech invites scrutiny. You have the right to say whatever you want, not the right to dictate how other people interpret or analyze what you say.
Most importantly: There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Starbucks is allowed to have security cameras. Only when a "publicly" accessable computer connected to the internet becomes involved does it become slashdot news-worthy apparently.
Why is there no uproar over security cameras in other retail-zoned establishments? Maybe the real issue is that some people's paranoia is strong enough that they fail to realize they're opposing somebody else's *actual* rights while looking out for the rights they incorrectly think they deserve. If you don't want to be on camera, nobody is forcing you to go to one of these cafes.
Funny, what he described would seem to me to be a more favorable description in the eyes of the current administration than the horror prortrayed through major media outlets. Are you saying there's a massive Bush administration/CNN conspiracy to make Bush look bad?
Let's go for some context here rather than having you pull shit out of your ass about basic math. Here's a quote from the comment I was replying to:
3rd biggest suppercomputer in the world for $108,900!
Now, Using the same linpack benchmark they use to determine the top 500 supercomputers, I would argue that due to the lack of built in low latency interconnect, and the lack of capability for expansion, you could never build the third fastest supercomputing cluster out of XBoxes, no matter how many of them you had. Ever. Period.
Let's assume that you could expand it. The interconnect card's price would be many times that of the price of the Xbox, and for that reason it would be cheaper to build your cluster out of more expensive, more powerful nodes because you'd need less (expensive) interconnect adapters.
If you want to build a 4 or eight node cluster, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to use Xboxes, but I would still bet that I could build a faster cluster for less out of standard components because I wouldn't put a hard drive in every node, among other things, keeping my node cost well under $100. (Don't forget that $79 is for 1.1ghz instead of 700Mhz like the Xbox...) I wouldn't have to waste time "hacking" my nodes either.
Where's the infiniband hardware in the Xbox again?
Why would you waste your money on something you have to hack, when you can get the same thing but faster for about the same money, and have the ability to customize it all you want?
I would agree with you if it were impossible to make a responsive GUI in Java. It isn't. Most unresponsive Java GUI's are slow due to poor choice of object operations when responding to events, not because it's using 'non-native' GUI calls, which at worst add a layer of library indirection.
The slowness we're talking about isn't typically miliseconds, it's whole seconds. You're talking about graphical slugishness, which is a whole differen't issue, and one that most users don't even notice.
The types of performance problems you're talking about are orders of magnitude away from the performance problems that users percieve when using Java applications though. The same problem exists in C#, and users will percieve it as slow too as soon as average and below average programmers start using C# for applications that people actually use.
When somebody says that a java application is painfully slow, the problem usually stems from the use of stock objects and the programmer's lack of understanding of the internals of these objects. There's a rich library of complex and convienient objects available for Java that allow Java programmers to quickly implement features that take much longer to implement in other languages, and programmers use them freely. Unfortunatly many of the operations on these objects have a high order of complexity that is hidden by operators like a simple '+'. This fools the unknowing application writer into thinking this is a fast operation, even if it's not. When Java applications are written by skilled programmers who take the cost of object operations into account when they write their software, they are actually quite snappy, and on modern machines the performance gained through different primitive implementations is only visible in benchmarks and scientific applications.
No, what they're saying is that the people making the decisions are not the people who understand the problem. Instead they're being made by people with a bigger paycheck that base the decision on "risk assessments" and personal hot buttons. That type of thing happens in amost every organization that grows to over 50 people.
What probably happened here is that some manager found out that the risk of the feature being exploitable was practically non existent if they fixed the bug, but completely non existent if they removed the feature, so they picked the solution least likely to get them fired.
[console ports]... they indicated the beginning of a renaissance in PC gaming
A what? Console ports on the PC is as much of a renaissance as PS2 backports to the original Playstation (Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 anyone?) represented a Playstation rennissance in some bizzaro world where the Playstation is more powerful than the PS2.
Remember 1994? Apogee, Id, Epic, 3dRealms, Sierra... That was a Renaissance. A year of console ports is more like a depression.
I don't know where all you acronym gessing slashdot posters come from, but if you don't thing "Legend of the Red Dragon" when you see LORD, then you really need to catch up on your geek history.
/me returns to daydreaming about a time when he could read the output of 'ls -l' without a pager.
Only tangentally related, but it seems silly to spend $19 on a cable for USB2 when you could add Firewire to your computer for $8 including the cable, and have it be useful for so much more....
Actually, you're specifically supposed to be able to exercise with it even though it's a hard drive based unit, so you do get at least that advantage. The display is also signifigantly better than those other devices listed, as is the interface (at least in my opinion). The tradeoff is really between storage and battery life when you're comparing devices of that size. The prices really aren't all that different.
Either way, I still stand by my point that it doesn't look like a good deal, so I really don't know why I'm arguing with you.
I use my dock all the time when I play music at home. The line out jack is the best part. With 20Gb of storage, I almost never actually change the content on my iPod. I may add some stuff about once a month, but that's it.
Ok, so perhaps everybody doesn't need it. I can accept that. Why's it $40 though? It's a 1" extention cable encased in acrylic. The prototype probably cost $7 to make. Stick one in the box! Lowering the price would be a good option too.
Slashdot Mirror
Blech. Those things do something nasty to the inside of my nose. The scent that they generate sticks around after breathing near one for hours. If I walk into a room with one, I can tell, and I leave. Of course I can also smell a male cat from 100 yards, so I can see how most people may not have the same problem... It's too bad though. I can't shop at places that sell the "ionic breeze" anymore.
Yeah right. Like she gave her real age. My mom has been 29 forever. I'm 26. Do the math.
They burn it when they brew it, not when they roast it I think. Go get some beans (their french roast is my favorite) and brew it yourself. It's as dark as it gets, but it's not burnt. It's very smooth and just a touch smokey like a french roast should be.
Either way, a cup you brew at home tastes *way better* than what they serve in the shop.
That's rediculous. An informed compiler can take all the CPI numbers, cache sizes, branch prediction probabilities, and other CPU specific features into account and generate code that is truly optimal in most situations. 99 times out of 100 (or more) a good modern compiler is going to generate code that is as good or better than a top-notch assembly programmer as long as the algorithms in the high level code are the same as the ones that would be used by the assembly programmer.
You have to remember that this report has been filtered through a reporter. My guess? It says something like "the system has three processors and is based on IBM's PPC970 architecture".
I'd be surprised if it actually had 3 PPC970s in it. One is probably more than enough to drive the video hardware it'll have. It's not likely to be CPU bound in many cases. More likely the three CPUs will be the main 970, the "GPU" and some other co-processor.
Why would he want that? Seems to me he wants us to believe that things went well and we're practically ready to get out of there. He wants us to believe we were bringers of good. At least that's what you'd think he wants based on his actions.
That's the correct spelling, by they way. Not speach)
/. posting and so afraid of repercussions that they AC it.
Yes yes, I had one typo. Sue me.
I never said anything about an end-users contemplation of speech. I was discussing efforts by the government to chill both the initial expression of alternative views and the reception of such views. Taking away the privacy of end-users has been seen as a method of preventing the dissemination of alternative views.
You assume that the government isn't an "end-user". You assume that investigation of an individual based on what they say should chill the expression. You assume that you are entitled to both the ability to express your opinions, and they freedom from judgement based on those opinions at the same time, no matter what the forum. The reason your assumptions are flawed seems to stem from your assumtion that people have privacy in public in the first place, which would be a requirement to have it taken away, now wouldn't it.
Furthermore, why do you think the government is a special case in this scenario? Can't a private organization have the same chilling effect given enough will? How can you prevent that while giving them the same guarantees?
As for politicians, they are public individuals specificaly and expressly trying to share their views with the public and explicitly attempting to tie their views to their public persona.
Really, so once you're a politician you no longer have the right to privacy in any forum? Since when? Politicians are still individuals, and as such have the same rights as any other individual. For example:
slightly different from a private citizen trying to respond to a
How can you be so sure that there aren't any politicians posting on slashdot as AC. Do you think that they should be required not to?
And finally:
Silly Mr. Bork.
A loose association between the thoughts of two people on a single issue do not tie them together on every position in any way. This sort of "loose logic" is exactly the thing that makes your original post in this thread absolutly outlandish. It's a childish tactic. Grow up.
That's why you three favor federal regulation of contraception, favor federal regulations concerning private sexual matters between married couples in the privacy of their own homes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I favor no such things beyond the current practice of requiring a prescription for certain forms of chemical contraception.
you and your pal Scalia are two of the only folks around who don't recognize the Privacy elements intrinsic to the Constitution
Show me a Supreme Court case (or any implied reference in the US Constitution) that limits how you are allowed to contemplate speach you've heard in a public forum in any way much less in the specific systematic way you've described. Face it, once it's out there, and everybody gets to think about it what they may. Any other expectations are unreasonable.
The attempt by government agencies to chill free speech by their intimidation attempts is far more objectionable
Do you prefer a double standard, or would you like the same rules you seem to propose to be applied to you? If so, you'd be the only person I know who would be against the collection and analysis of statements made by, say, politicians.
Based on what you've said, you get to take your pick: are you a hypocrite or an idiot?
If the analysis of your speech (by anybody, the government is no different) "chills" your desire to speak up, then maybe the problem is with what you're saying or your resolve to say it, and not with the government. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having people disagree with you, or freedom from having people judge you based on your statements. In fact it means exactly the opposite.
Right, and where does that say anything about the privacy of speech in public?
Please crawl back inside your cave Mr. Troll.
Don't pretend for a second that you didn't make an enormous leap when you went from:
Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights have every word they read or write be marked down and poured over by government agents?
Where the only thing objectionable about it is the probable waste of money, and:
Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights be forced to prove their loyalty to the current administration and be detained indefinitely if they are incapable of expressing the proper amount of shock and awe?
Where you suggest that their speech isn't really free.
Here's the facts of life: Free speech invites scrutiny. You have the right to say whatever you want, not the right to dictate how other people interpret or analyze what you say.
Most importantly: There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Starbucks is allowed to have security cameras. Only when a "publicly" accessable computer connected to the internet becomes involved does it become slashdot news-worthy apparently.
Why is there no uproar over security cameras in other retail-zoned establishments? Maybe the real issue is that some people's paranoia is strong enough that they fail to realize they're opposing somebody else's *actual* rights while looking out for the rights they incorrectly think they deserve. If you don't want to be on camera, nobody is forcing you to go to one of these cafes.
Funny, what he described would seem to me to be a more favorable description in the eyes of the current administration than the horror prortrayed through major media outlets. Are you saying there's a massive Bush administration/CNN conspiracy to make Bush look bad?
Bah. No it wouldn't. It would just be silly, because many compilers can generate better assembler than even the best programmers these days.
Let's go for some context here rather than having you pull shit out of your ass about basic math. Here's a quote from the comment I was replying to:
3rd biggest suppercomputer in the world for $108,900!
Now, Using the same linpack benchmark they use to determine the top 500 supercomputers, I would argue that due to the lack of built in low latency interconnect, and the lack of capability for expansion, you could never build the third fastest supercomputing cluster out of XBoxes, no matter how many of them you had. Ever. Period.
Let's assume that you could expand it. The interconnect card's price would be many times that of the price of the Xbox, and for that reason it would be cheaper to build your cluster out of more expensive, more powerful nodes because you'd need less (expensive) interconnect adapters.
If you want to build a 4 or eight node cluster, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to use Xboxes, but I would still bet that I could build a faster cluster for less out of standard components because I wouldn't put a hard drive in every node, among other things, keeping my node cost well under $100. (Don't forget that $79 is for 1.1ghz instead of 700Mhz like the Xbox...) I wouldn't have to waste time "hacking" my nodes either.
Actually, I believe what I implied was that for HPC, they were better than a hacked X-Box.
Of course since you clearly know more than me about large scale clusters, you must be right....
Where's the infiniband hardware in the Xbox again?
Why would you waste your money on something you have to hack, when you can get the same
thing but faster for about the same money, and have the ability to customize it all you want?
I would agree with you if it were impossible to make a responsive GUI in Java. It isn't. Most unresponsive Java GUI's are slow due to poor choice of object operations when responding to events, not because it's using 'non-native' GUI calls, which at worst add a layer of library indirection.
The slowness we're talking about isn't typically miliseconds, it's whole seconds. You're talking about graphical slugishness, which is a whole differen't issue, and one that most users don't even notice.
The types of performance problems you're talking about are orders of magnitude away from the performance problems that users percieve when using Java applications though. The same problem exists in C#, and users will percieve it as slow too as soon as average and below average programmers start using C# for applications that people actually use.
When somebody says that a java application is painfully slow, the problem usually stems from the use of stock objects and the programmer's lack of understanding of the internals of these objects. There's a rich library of complex and convienient objects available for Java that allow Java programmers to quickly implement features that take much longer to implement in other languages, and programmers use them freely. Unfortunatly many of the operations on these objects have a high order of complexity that is hidden by operators like a simple '+'. This fools the unknowing application writer into thinking this is a fast operation, even if it's not. When Java applications are written by skilled programmers who take the cost of object operations into account when they write their software, they are actually quite snappy, and on modern machines the performance gained through different primitive implementations is only visible in benchmarks and scientific applications.
No, what they're saying is that the people making the decisions are not the people who understand the problem. Instead they're being made by people with a bigger paycheck that base the decision on "risk assessments" and personal hot buttons. That type of thing happens in amost every organization that grows to over 50 people.
What probably happened here is that some manager found out that the risk of the feature being exploitable was practically non existent if they fixed the bug, but completely non existent if they removed the feature, so they picked the solution least likely to get them fired.
[console ports] ... they indicated the beginning of a renaissance in PC gaming
A what? Console ports on the PC is as much of a renaissance as PS2 backports to the original Playstation (Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 anyone?) represented a Playstation rennissance in some bizzaro world where the Playstation is more powerful than the PS2.
Remember 1994? Apogee, Id, Epic, 3dRealms, Sierra... That was a Renaissance. A year of console ports is more like a depression.
Only tangentally related, but it seems silly to spend $19 on a cable for USB2 when you could add Firewire to your computer for $8 including the cable, and have it be useful for so much more....
5. Few things suck as much as not getting paid for over a year after you finish a job.
Actually, you're specifically supposed to be able to exercise with it even though it's a hard drive based unit, so you do get at least that advantage. The display is also signifigantly better than those other devices listed, as is the interface (at least in my opinion). The tradeoff is really between storage and battery life when you're comparing devices of that size. The prices really aren't all that different.
Either way, I still stand by my point that it doesn't look like a good deal, so I really don't know why I'm arguing with you.
I use my dock all the time when I play music at home. The line out jack is the best part. With 20Gb of storage, I almost never actually change the content on my iPod. I may add some stuff about once a month, but that's it.
Ok, so perhaps everybody doesn't need it. I can accept that. Why's it $40 though? It's a 1" extention cable encased in acrylic. The prototype probably cost $7 to make. Stick one in the box! Lowering the price would be a good option too.