We don't know, and if it is we don't know to what degree.
If they are understating performance, they are doing it to themselves as well.
Again, we don't know. We do know that they are understating performance for the Intel machines and we do know that they are using a compiler that optimises for the G5.
Until then, these results are certainly more informative to me than comparing gcc on G5 to icc on P4.
No they are not. We don't know to what degree GCC is optimising for the G5 so we can't assume that the compiler is a non-issue here. The results are presented as "accurately demonstat[ing] the performance of a dual processor system". Clearly they don't accurately demonstrate the performance of the Dell because the compiler used does not produce fast code on that system. It is not a useful comparison in any way. As you say we'll find out when independent reviewers have their hands on the machines, but in the meantime Apple appear to be misrepresenting the performance of the G5 Mac relative to the Dells. They are certainly under-representing the Dells performance and it is highly doubtful that they are doing the same, to the same degree, to the Mac.
True, but if the OS can't use a 64-bit address space, can it use the G5 SIMD? What if you are working with large floating point values, or long integers? Even 32-bit procesors have 64 or 128 bit extensions for special math operations.
For SIMD it does not matter whether the OS includes support or not - it only matters whether the application is compiled to support them. The Veritest PDF states that they used a G5 optimised compiler for Apple, and a compiler that was set to not use SSE2 for the Dells. The systems that are getting underoptimised here is obviously the Dells.
The scores on spec.org were achived with a different compiler.
What's your point? These benchmarks are system level benchmarks intended to show which system is quicker. You should use the fastest compiler for each system when comparing them. Apple's use of an inferior compiler on the Dells is another black mark against the objectivity of their benchmarks.
The current comparison is demostrating the performance for a typical usage.
No it's not. It's a synthetic benchmark, inwhich Apple is understating the performance of the opposition.
This is not understating anything. More likely it's just clever marketing.
Clever marketing it may be, but it borders on fraud. They are quite clearly understating the performance of the Dells in order to mislead the consumer.
It hardly damages his stance against downloading music.
Of course it does. It points out how ridiculous his stance on music piracy is. His stance implies that it would been reasonable for Milonic software to physically destroy his servers for his transgression. Or is he drawing a distinction between piracy of music and other forms of copyright infringement? Perhaps he saying that only big media companies should be allowed to vandalise other peoples' equipment?
The only problem I see is that the hashes are still derived from...
Others have pointed out another major problem: that a matching MD5 hash gives us the exact code they don't want us to have (since we have the matching Linux source). However I haven't seen anyone mention another big problem that makes this scheme unworkable:
We would have no proof that the MD5 hashes SCO provide are actually generated from their code. Eventually we'd find out, when it got to court, but in the meantime this process wouldn't give me any more confidence in SCOs claims than I have already.
EDR seeprom âoeflight recordersâ in cars were installed because of early 1980s accusations by female drivers of audiâ(TM)s, that their Audiâ(TM)s suddenly lurched forwared into traffica nd carages. (Male drivers somehow were not affected by the mysterious haunted-audi accelerator pedal mystery).
It wasn't only female drivers. It was, however, fabricated. The Audi 5000 never had any "runaway accelerator" fault, it was all driver error and an overly sensationalist story by 60 minutes. Details here.
You start to hydroplane, and run into a car going 100mph, and hit them head on. You spend a few days in the hospital. When you get out, you get 20 to life for vehicular homicide because his car didn't have a black box and yours did. It's just too bad that although your _wheels_ were going 95mph, you were only doing 55.
The speeds are irrelevant. If you lost control of your vehicle (and it wasn't a mechanical fault), and hit someone then you are at fault. If you are proven to have been driving negligently and killed someone then you goo away for vehicular homicide.
I wonder if there was any other evidence that showed that he was going 114mph? I doubt if they felt it was not needed. Computers never make mistakes, do they?
If you had RTFA, you'd know that the accident investigator estimated 98mph. It is highly likely that the EDR was extremely accurate in this case. Still given the investigators testimony, it's questionable that the EDR was a key piece of evidence in this case. On the face of it, I'd say he would have been convicted anyway.
The Russians did not have a civilian space program. They had a military program, whose goals happened to include similar goals to NASA. The R16 disaster is a failure of the exact same orgranisation as all the other Russian problems and successes. That L-1 accident was a military mission. I also note that you omitted the Soyuz 11 disaster which killed 3 cosmonauts.
Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities
Ha, I assume this is meant to be a joke. For those that don't get it, Russia has an appalling track record. Their worst disaster was the explosion of an R-16 booster on the launch pad at Baikonur. Around 100 people died.
Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.
There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).
The fundamental problem is that Telecom NZ is a private company, and as such, is *required* to return a profit to its shareholders.
The fundamental problem is that Telecom NZ has a monopoly on the infrastructure (they own the local loop). So there is no competiton, at least as far as DSL goes. Some cities have cable, but not the largest city. Overseas connections are controlled by Telecom anyway (AFAIK).
I hardly think that Tucker presented it in "the public interest"
I agree - his story was not presented in a way that indicated that he was attempting to enlighten the public as to her "hypocrisy". However I don't believe that he should be required to conceal the details and even the very existence of the relationship. He has the right to publish an account of that part of his life, and I think it's unreasonable for Johnson to insist otherwise, especially given the fairly public nature of most of the events in the story.
Besides it is her responsibility to ensure that the people she is getting into that sort of "compromising" relationship with are trustworthy. It's not like kiss-and-tell stories are a unusual issue for celebrities.
But Tucker's story would have been just good if he had talked about a "former Miss Vermont, who we'll call Miss Vermont..."
By actually naming her he is making a strong statement that his story is true. If it were not then he'd be opening himself up to a clear-cut libel suit. Being a Duke Law grad he is clearly not that stupid. Note that Johnson did not sue him for libel, which is almost an admission from her that the story is accurate (despite the NYT quote that she emphatically denies the story).
Does this mean that 95 cents of each MS $ of it's undisclosed "Unix" licensing fees are going to Novell? Does M$ know this?
I believe it does. And not only that, but if hell froze over and SCO got their billion dollars from IBM I think Novell would have a pretty good claim for $950M of it.
Rafelasia a parasitic plant from the South East Asian rainforests (the Malay side of the Wallace line). There is some excellent footage of it on David Attenborough's Private lives of plants. Definately bigger (wider) than the Amorphophallus titanum but not as tall.
Rafflesia arnoldii grows to about a 1m diameter. The Titan Arum in bloom in Bonn has a diameter of 1.5m. So the Titan Arum is both taller and wider than Rafflesia. However the flower of the Titan Arum is not really a flower, it is infact an "inflorescence", a cluster of flowers (the largest in the world).
Same for me. My wife got me watching Buffy and it's a great show. A friend of hers has been trying to get her watching Charmed so I've seen a few episodes and it's just crap. I just can't watch it.
Buffy has a depth to it that few shows on TV achieve. It has brilliant writing, complex and believable (if fantastic) characters, a very high level of production quality (especially amazing given the resources they had for the first few series), great acting, and an interesting premise. It doesn't fit in a single genre but instead covers many genres. It has a very nerd feel to it and includes a lot of pop culture and nerd references. At times it has been extraordinarily innovative, e.g. the episodes Hush and Once More With Feeling. Buffy is a truely seminal piece of work.
the similar Charmed
I have not watched a great deal of Charmed, but IMHO, Charmed is at best a successful ripoff of the concept. But it's closer to "Melrose Place" with magic. The quality of the writing and production is much lower. A telling point is that Buffy has had many Emmy nominations despite not being the mainstream drama or comedy that the Emmys overwhelmingly prefer to honor. Charmed has had none.
I'm not suggesting that Charmed should register on Slashdot's radar, rather I'm asking why Buffy does.
Buffy has a big nerd following. It is a show a lot of nerds relate to.
Not that I think she's that attractive but is it a Sarah Michelle Gellar thing? I've read so many posts on Slashdot, in various discussions about quality television and I find it amazing that Buffy is even mentioned in the same breath as shows such as CSI, The West Wing and 24.
It's not a SMG thing. And you won't just find comparisons to CSI, West Wing, and 24 on Slashdot. You see it in the mainstream media from time to time, too. Just look at the coverage Buffy got when the end of the series was announced. Look at the coverage the last episode is getting. Look at the attention Buffy gets from academics.
I think you've missed the point. Jpellino was pointing out that the fact that humans have a literary community, artistic community, philosophical community, etc, indicates the significance of the difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Could it be because not so long ago
people usually didnt live
beyond 40?
No. Archimedes was in his late 70's when killed by an invading Roman soldier. Pythagoras was widely reported to be around 100 when he died in (or after) the attack on his school by Cylon. Diophantus lived to 84. Newton also died when he was 84. Euler: 76. Gauss: 78. Fermat: 64. Daniel Bernoulli: 82. Johann Bernoulli: 81.
Stories like the ones about Abel or Galois distort the picture.
But there are a lot of stories like Abel and Galois. Even recently. Take Taniyama and Shimura, for example, who proposed the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture in 1955, before they where 30. Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is really a proof of their conjecture. Wiles' may have been 41 when he completed that proof, but it was a pair of young men who had the revolutionary insight.
Slashdot Mirror
It reduces the space taken up by the display on your desk. It does not reduce the size or resolution of the screen itself.
We would have no proof that the MD5 hashes SCO provide are actually generated from their code. Eventually we'd find out, when it got to court, but in the meantime this process wouldn't give me any more confidence in SCOs claims than I have already.
There is no reason to do it if the code is right, and it's a performance hit. It's useful for debugging though.
The Russians did not have a civilian space program. They had a military program, whose goals happened to include similar goals to NASA. The R16 disaster is a failure of the exact same orgranisation as all the other Russian problems and successes. That L-1 accident was a military mission. I also note that you omitted the Soyuz 11 disaster which killed 3 cosmonauts.
Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.
There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).
they should strictly have said "...first and only city that is not also a country..." :-)
Which is still not true as Hong Kong still has it's .hk ccTLD.
What about Hong Kong (.hk)?
"IBM believes that our contract with regard to AIX is irrevocable and perpetual and there is nothing further to discuss".
Besides it is her responsibility to ensure that the people she is getting into that sort of "compromising" relationship with are trustworthy. It's not like kiss-and-tell stories are a unusual issue for celebrities.
By actually naming her he is making a strong statement that his story is true. If it were not then he'd be opening himself up to a clear-cut libel suit. Being a Duke Law grad he is clearly not that stupid. Note that Johnson did not sue him for libel, which is almost an admission from her that the story is accurate (despite the NYT quote that she emphatically denies the story).How easy is it to put a Chevy V8 into a 300ZX? That link seemed to be talking about the older Z cars...
Same for me. My wife got me watching Buffy and it's a great show. A friend of hers has been trying to get her watching Charmed so I've seen a few episodes and it's just crap. I just can't watch it.
I think you've missed the point. Jpellino was pointing out that the fact that humans have a literary community, artistic community, philosophical community, etc, indicates the significance of the difference between humans and chimpanzees.