I don't have a problem with the GPL- the person who writes the software has ultimate rights about how they are going to license it.
But your characterization is just silly. People hate the GPL not because they want to be greedy and not give back their improvements.
Generally, anyone who is using open source to begin with sees the economic value of contributing their improvements back into the tree-- if they don't then they won't be able to use the improvements of others either, every release will require a complete reworking of that bit of code.
No, the problem is the GPL wants to force them to give up their original code as well. The GPL isn't satisfied enough with its code being open sourced, it wants to FORCE anyone who uses code that is GPLed to also open source their own code.
THAT's how its anti-freedom. The GPL keeping the GPLed code open source nobody has a beef with. ITs forcing people to opensource unrelated code that people find offensive.
Unless you've invented your own language, every utterance and recording of your thoughts is an appropriation and parroting of others, and not in a trivial way.
I'm amazingly shocked at just how loony you people are.
Cause someone else used the word "people" long before me, and many times, the above thought is totally stolen from someone else?
So, who exactly did I steal the thought "I'm amazingly shocked at just how loony you people are." from?
Calling someone a marxist sounds extreme-- to people who don't know what marx said!
I HATE people who think "ownership" in a black and white term. For almost all substantial corporate forms today, the ethics of "ownership" are almost totally corrupt.
Thats a tall statement from a little coward such as yourself.
Can you prove it? All the examples you gave are silly-- and also represent that you don't know what emminent domain is.
Funny that you complain about the zoning laws that you claimed were changed (which is stupid in itself) and how that violates the rights of the adjoining property owners . Totally ironic that in your little soviet state there are no adjoining property owners-- cause nobody owns property!
Do you wonder why those of ability question yours?
But it's interesting that you choose Bell... if he hadn't invented the telephone, it would have been invented by Edison within a few years time. He was employed by Western Union attempting to complete this project at the time.
Course the existence of patents is what created the race for them to innovate this solution.
The ironic thing is those of you who want to do away with innovation think that you're going to increase it!
What you'll get is people either refusing to invent, or people who do everything they can to obscure the invention. This may well be successful for far longer than the patent period would have been! And their competitors wouldn't have been able to use their patent to learn from in the first place.
You'd actually rather people keep things secret-- seems like you don't want more spreading of knowledge you want less.
And you really should read atlas shrugged. It describes in vivid detail the consequences of what you advocate.
And like those in the train tunnel collapse, you deserve the consequences of what you advocate.
No one, Bell included, can come to an idea completely on their own.
This is garbage.
The computer existed before the spreadsheet. So did the paper spreadsheet.
But the idea of putting one on the computer and how to solve the problems inherent in that were the original idea of the visicalc people.
Because accounting, computers, and paper spreadsheets existed, does not mean that there were no original ideas in visicalc.
And it certainly doesn't mean that the "collective" (as if it ever existed) OWNS those ideas.
The visicalc people don't suddenly come into possession of ownership of the paper spreadsheet, but their original ideas were their own.
IF you wish to appropriate them merely because you want them (this is known as wanting something for nothing) without paying them, then you are no better than the common thief.
The only work is labor that people do building things-- those that designed them are rich evil bastards who didn't do any real work.
These are the ideas born in an agrarian economy, without regard for human rights, and have led to the murder of more people than any other ideology in the world over. Just china and russia alone (not counting pol pot, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) have kill 4 or 5 times as many people as hitler-- all because they dared to disagree with the idea you just presented.
Look at it this way-- if you don't protect engineering work, people WILL "keep them to themselves" as you advocate.
And then think where you'd be.
This is the exact scenario described in Atlas Shrugged. You should read it, then you won't sound like an idiot.
If you make it unprofitable to think and innovate, then people will stop giving you their labor for free.
By the way, who did Filo T farnsworth steal the idea for the TV from?
No original ideas my ass. Well, except where marxists are concerned-- its been a hundred years. We've seen a hundred million people murdered to enforce these tired old ideas, yet you can't come up with anything new.
Justice would be when the mob drags you and your family into the streets to rape you to death while your possesions go up in flames and the cops and firefighters just watch and laugh at your moronic ass.
Yeah-- that's your idea of paradise I'm sure.
Interestingly, this exact scenario has played out historically.
It occurred in Russia, soon after the ideology you espoused won the revolution you also espouse.
Course, those of us who are AMERICANS believe in human rights. Its unfortunate that you do not.
Jobs made his fortune stealing Xerox's graphical interface
How is a license where he pays money to xerox in order to use some of their technology "Stealing"?
Never mind that he was already very very rich at that point because the computer he and Woz built was extremely popular.
Of course, you'll say Woz did all the work because actually getting them in customers hands is worthless and woz did all the design.
But then, we already knew you were a fool.
Even with that short list you failed to provide any examples (other than shady microsoft stuff- even though they did work very very hard for the rest of MS's success) of people who cheated their way to wealth.
Generally speaking, in today's America, the most wealthy are the least productive.
Yes, you're right that is a fallacy. Its unfortunate that so many well meaning people who have never even read marx keep spreading his false idea that only the "Working man" is productive.
Go look at the forbes 400 -- the vast majority of them created companies that employ thousands of people. IF you think they are "nonproductive" then you are stupid. After all, without their WORK, those hundreds of thousands of people would not be employed.
But perversely, you marxists claim that creating jobs is worthless.
By the way, on average, less than %6 of people who are worth a million inherited it.
So, this idea that the "wealthy" inherited their money is a flat out lie.
I have acted. I provide zero dollars to support the corrupt educational system. (Because its financed by property tax, and I pay none, and my landlord pays none, which is highly unusual, but this happens to be the case for me.)
And I'm working to elect people who actually exercise fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the two sides of our one party system exclude non-party candidates from the ballot.
Yeah, if the classes were rigorous (And if the modern ones were worth anything) you'd be required to provide unit tests along with your program.
To be honest, I think the average CS program is a nearly complete waste of time. I see the value in what they teach, and I've certainly come across students who's time was not wasted and became good engineers-- but colleges unfortunately look disdainfully on the idea of teaching people job skills.
I'm all for the theory, but if you put out programmers who have little practical ability, you have wasted their time and money.
No, hardcore programmers do not use Realbasic. Lower level programmers do. And that's fine. There are languages for every level... and as they progress, they can graduate to better tools.
Nobody uses real basic to make large, complex powerful apps-- at least in terms of how those terms are used to reference other applciations. Even iApps would be very difficult to do in RealBasic.
Nice as it is, if you're spending all your time dealing with the OS's API in C, then you might as well not be using Basic, right?
Its great for what it does, and I don't begrudge it. I certainly enjoyed using it when I did a couple years ago for a quicky application that didn't need to do much.
But if you want to be programming in the big leagues, you need to eventually migrate to Cocoa. (Take your time, its not like programming in basic is a waste of time.)
Ok, I retract the statement that he's too incompetent to be teaching the class-- I concede that he may well just bee too lazy to teach the class without imposing IDE restrictions.
If I found myself in such a class, I would engage in extended heated debate with the mutherfucker right there on the spot. Cause I'd have my mac with me, and it compiles C++ code just fine.
Unforutnately, I think colleges are teaching kids tools, rather than skills. This is all part of the dumbing down of programming. Its no longer "are you a good programmer" but "have you written SQL for Oracle 9?" Cause if you've only written SQL for Oracle 8i, CLEARLY you are unqualified with the job because you haven't used the PRODUCT.
The product is irrelevant, but it is becoming what people care about--- and thus the quality of the software development going on goes down the tubes.
Look at C#-- now we have MS making a language that is good only on their platform!
Yes, except that developers for the microsoft platform are the MINORITY, not the majority.
Yes, MS has a large installed base and a large part of one segment of the market-- but the rest of the industry is not going to adopt C#.
The language is DOA. The only question is will it destroy microsoft in the process, or not.
Re:I dont understand how they could have missed th
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 2
You can retire early. All you have to do is be financially prudent.
There are many books that will show you how-- from the Motley Fools "You have more than you think" to "Buffettology" to the popular "Wealthy Barber" series.
Its actually quite easy to save up enough money to retire on in 10 or 15 years if you decide you want to do it.
What possible reason could you have to think that you can't do this? Or that generation X cant do it? The stock market is there- and in fact, there is far MORE opportunity to do this than your parents had or the generations before them-- financial instruments are more readily available and cheaper than ever before.
What you can't have is a house that is wastefully big, a new car every 4 years, lots of credit card debt buying crap AND early retirement.
But even living high on the hog (a nice lifestyle without scrimping) I've been able to make alot of progress to early retirement.
And here's the ironic thing-- the stock market crash has gotten me closer FASTER than if it hadn't crashed. (IT didn't crash, but you know what I mean.)
The only think keeping you from this, far as I can tell, is ignorance and attitude. The ignorance is easy to fix, read any of the books I just recommended. The attitude is up to you.
If you're happy with your 1GHz processor, fine. But don't pretend that current x86 processors at 2+GHz don't wipe the floor with the slower ppc offerings.
Yet another idiot who thinks that the clock rate determines the processor speed.
Yes, idiot is not too strong of a word.
BY the way, the x86 compared to was fully optimized for the pentium FPU. The powerPC was as well, and it "wiped the floor" with the pentium, as you say.
To claim that the only fair comparison is one where the powerpc FPU is not used is absurd.
And to then claim that because this "Fair" comparison wasn't done the faster clock speed of the pentium makes it faster just shows how ignorant you are of processor architecture and performance.
Given that all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, your continued refusal to accept reality earns you this title: bleeding idiot
And of course you're wrong-- your own comparison compared two chips with the SAME CLOCK RATE.
They were labeled differently because the companies labeled them based on different clocks.
But both ran internally at 66MHz.
That pretty much proves my case, idiot.
PS- I love how you think compiling with altivec performance optimization on is "cheating". so, in your view, the only fair comparison is one where the floating point unit is never used? Uh Huh.
his "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
The ironic thing is that BOTH of those processors ran at 66MHz!
Back in those days, motorola labled the speed of the chip based on the speed of the external buss, not the internal clock rate, while Intel used the higher of the two- the internal clock rate.
So, even on clock there is no way the 486 was faster-- and when you look at the architectures, it was absolutely a lot slower.
So for this guy to claim that the 486 blew it away, we know he's just saying what he wants to be true-- any fair comparison would show quite the opposite.
AND revealing his ignorance of the fact that both of those parts had the same internal clock rate!
Clock rates are all about marketing, and nothing about performance.
a P4 2.8 GHz does it at 2.8 GHz (with some parts operating at twice that speed, as was pointed out).
Gee, os it really isn't 2.8GHz? Its twice that speed in some places?
I think you just conceded my point that this number is a totally fabricated marketing term-- even you admit that some places don't run at 2.8GHz.
So, since two ALUs equal "twice the clock rate" then the current PowerPC G4 is an 8GHz chip.
Even if they ARE running at twice the clock rate, the clock rate is STILL IRRELEVANT because how much WORK can be done has very little to do with clock rate.
Clock rate is only relevant when comparing processors of EXACTLY the same design.
When you compare two architectures- intel to AMD or intel to Motorola, and talk about clock rate and performance, you're speaking out of your ass.
Of course they run at 2.8 GHz. That's the clock speed; they can't help but run at 2.8 GHz.
Its unfortunate that being a "geek" has become cool-- there are so many such as yourself who have taken on this label and use it to bash actual engineers.
A modern processor is not like the old days where they had a crystal that resonated at a given frequency to generate the clock. The modern processor uses a phased locked loop, and clocks various parts of the processor at DIFFERENT RATES.
It used to be the clock rate was the rate at which it accessed its internal buss. Well, are you really claiming that the buss for a pentium is 2.8GHz? Motorola continued to use this figure for a long while, after intel started listing the clock rate as the highest clock that exists anywhere on the chip.
Furthermore, the clock rate no longer measures the rate at which instructions are issued-- this varies as the chip executes code. Cach flushes and pipeline flushes, branch prediction failures, and the fact that cisc instructions take variable numbers of clock cycles to execute make the clock rate as a measurement of speed (on cisc architectures like the pentium) pretty pointless. Nevermind that the pentium architecture has an embedded 386 processors on board to handle the non-pentium instructions for backwards compatibility-- depending on whats happening between the two processors (all on the same chip) you never know whether the instruction that was just executed was really going to be used (due to out of order execution.)
The RISC architecture was designed to get around this by making every instruction execute in a single clock. so you can more easily parallelize your processing... thus its quite easy for a processor running at 1GHz to be 4 times as effective as one at 2GHz (because it issues 8 instructions per clock and each one is far more likely to execute in a single clock.)
Intel already played fast and loose by redefining what the clock rate of a chip meant once. And the modern chips are so complicated that there really is no single actual clock value-- the external bus is at one clock rate, the various instruction units run at some fraction of the "clock rate" and the internal memory buss has yet another clock.
Don't insult someone's "geekiness" when you don't understand the basics of processor design. The CISC/RISC split occurred over 10 years ago. And while both camps have learned from each other and adopted technology where they can, the architectures are still VASTLY different-- making your straight on clock rate comparison about as smart as a the guy who says "But you see, it goes to 11!"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with the GPL- the person who writes the software has ultimate rights about how they are going to license it.
But your characterization is just silly. People hate the GPL not because they want to be greedy and not give back their improvements.
Generally, anyone who is using open source to begin with sees the economic value of contributing their improvements back into the tree-- if they don't then they won't be able to use the improvements of others either, every release will require a complete reworking of that bit of code.
No, the problem is the GPL wants to force them to give up their original code as well. The GPL isn't satisfied enough with its code being open sourced, it wants to FORCE anyone who uses code that is GPLed to also open source their own code.
THAT's how its anti-freedom. The GPL keeping the GPLed code open source nobody has a beef with. ITs forcing people to opensource unrelated code that people find offensive.
Please at least understand what the issue is.
Unless you've invented your own language, every utterance and recording of your thoughts is an appropriation and parroting of others, and not in a trivial way.
I'm amazingly shocked at just how loony you people are.
Cause someone else used the word "people" long before me, and many times, the above thought is totally stolen from someone else?
So, who exactly did I steal the thought "I'm amazingly shocked at just how loony you people are." from?
Calling someone a marxist sounds extreme-- to people who don't know what marx said!
I HATE people who think "ownership" in a black and white term. For almost all substantial corporate forms today, the ethics of "ownership" are almost totally corrupt.
Thats a tall statement from a little coward such as yourself.
Can you prove it? All the examples you gave are silly-- and also represent that you don't know what emminent domain is.
Funny that you complain about the zoning laws that you claimed were changed (which is stupid in itself) and how that violates the rights of the adjoining property owners . Totally ironic that in your little soviet state there are no adjoining property owners-- cause nobody owns property!
Do you wonder why those of ability question yours?
Nobody is "successful enough to own" a property. Nobody.
It always saddens me when I see people who are so eager to turn over the ownership of their own body to the state.
After all, if its not property, what is it?
But it's interesting that you choose Bell... if he hadn't invented the telephone, it would have been invented by Edison within a few years time. He was employed by Western Union attempting to complete this project at the time.
Course the existence of patents is what created the race for them to innovate this solution.
The ironic thing is those of you who want to do away with innovation think that you're going to increase it!
What you'll get is people either refusing to invent, or people who do everything they can to obscure the invention. This may well be successful for far longer than the patent period would have been! And their competitors wouldn't have been able to use their patent to learn from in the first place.
You'd actually rather people keep things secret-- seems like you don't want more spreading of knowledge you want less.
And you really should read atlas shrugged. It describes in vivid detail the consequences of what you advocate.
And like those in the train tunnel collapse, you deserve the consequences of what you advocate.
No one, Bell included, can come to an idea completely on their own.
This is garbage.
The computer existed before the spreadsheet. So did the paper spreadsheet.
But the idea of putting one on the computer and how to solve the problems inherent in that were the original idea of the visicalc people.
Because accounting, computers, and paper spreadsheets existed, does not mean that there were no original ideas in visicalc.
And it certainly doesn't mean that the "collective" (as if it ever existed) OWNS those ideas.
The visicalc people don't suddenly come into possession of ownership of the paper spreadsheet, but their original ideas were their own.
IF you wish to appropriate them merely because you want them (this is known as wanting something for nothing) without paying them, then you are no better than the common thief.
Ah, we here the collectivist theme song--
There's no such thing as innovation.
The only work is labor that people do building things-- those that designed them are rich evil bastards who didn't do any real work.
These are the ideas born in an agrarian economy, without regard for human rights, and have led to the murder of more people than any other ideology in the world over. Just china and russia alone (not counting pol pot, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) have kill 4 or 5 times as many people as hitler-- all because they dared to disagree with the idea you just presented.
Look at it this way-- if you don't protect engineering work, people WILL "keep them to themselves" as you advocate.
And then think where you'd be.
This is the exact scenario described in Atlas Shrugged. You should read it, then you won't sound like an idiot.
If you make it unprofitable to think and innovate, then people will stop giving you their labor for free.
By the way, who did Filo T farnsworth steal the idea for the TV from?
No original ideas my ass. Well, except where marxists are concerned-- its been a hundred years. We've seen a hundred million people murdered to enforce these tired old ideas, yet you can't come up with anything new.
Well, the rest of us can, so piss off.
They sure are. Which is not to say that Java is worthless, I'm sure for many applications Java is the preferred xplat strategy.
And I look forward to the day when Apple or someone else makes Cocoa fully crossplatform.
Justice would be when the mob drags you and your family into the streets to rape you to death while your possesions go up in flames and the cops and firefighters just watch and laugh at your moronic ass.
Yeah-- that's your idea of paradise I'm sure.
Interestingly, this exact scenario has played out historically.
It occurred in Russia, soon after the ideology you espoused won the revolution you also espouse.
Course, those of us who are AMERICANS believe in human rights. Its unfortunate that you do not.
Jobs made his fortune stealing Xerox's graphical interface
How is a license where he pays money to xerox in order to use some of their technology "Stealing"?
Never mind that he was already very very rich at that point because the computer he and Woz built was extremely popular.
Of course, you'll say Woz did all the work because actually getting them in customers hands is worthless and woz did all the design.
But then, we already knew you were a fool.
Even with that short list you failed to provide any examples (other than shady microsoft stuff- even though they did work very very hard for the rest of MS's success) of people who cheated their way to wealth.
Generally speaking, in today's America, the most wealthy are the least productive.
Yes, you're right that is a fallacy. Its unfortunate that so many well meaning people who have never even read marx keep spreading his false idea that only the "Working man" is productive.
Go look at the forbes 400 -- the vast majority of them created companies that employ thousands of people. IF you think they are "nonproductive" then you are stupid. After all, without their WORK, those hundreds of thousands of people would not be employed.
But perversely, you marxists claim that creating jobs is worthless.
By the way, on average, less than %6 of people who are worth a million inherited it.
So, this idea that the "wealthy" inherited their money is a flat out lie.
I guess if you tried really hard you could make a hello world that linked in lots of useless stuff.
But that's not codewarrior. Make a tool next time, not a gui app.
Ah, I see you bought a house that put you in the poor house. Well, great for you.
I actually own the place that I live, free and clear. So, I have no mortgage payments, and low maintenance costs.
Maybe you should be living with mommy-- better to do that than default on the house you couldn't afford in the first place.
I have acted. I provide zero dollars to support the corrupt educational system. (Because its financed by property tax, and I pay none, and my landlord pays none, which is highly unusual, but this happens to be the case for me.)
And I'm working to elect people who actually exercise fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the two sides of our one party system exclude non-party candidates from the ballot.
Its as bad as the soviet union.
Yeah, if the classes were rigorous (And if the modern ones were worth anything) you'd be required to provide unit tests along with your program.
To be honest, I think the average CS program is a nearly complete waste of time. I see the value in what they teach, and I've certainly come across students who's time was not wasted and became good engineers-- but colleges unfortunately look disdainfully on the idea of teaching people job skills.
I'm all for the theory, but if you put out programmers who have little practical ability, you have wasted their time and money.
Actually, I do.
No, hardcore programmers do not use Realbasic. Lower level programmers do. And that's fine. There are languages for every level... and as they progress, they can graduate to better tools.
Nobody uses real basic to make large, complex powerful apps-- at least in terms of how those terms are used to reference other applciations. Even iApps would be very difficult to do in RealBasic.
Nice as it is, if you're spending all your time dealing with the OS's API in C, then you might as well not be using Basic, right?
Its great for what it does, and I don't begrudge it. I certainly enjoyed using it when I did a couple years ago for a quicky application that didn't need to do much.
But if you want to be programming in the big leagues, you need to eventually migrate to Cocoa. (Take your time, its not like programming in basic is a waste of time.)
Ok, I retract the statement that he's too incompetent to be teaching the class-- I concede that he may well just bee too lazy to teach the class without imposing IDE restrictions.
If I found myself in such a class, I would engage in extended heated debate with the mutherfucker right there on the spot. Cause I'd have my mac with me, and it compiles C++ code just fine.
Unforutnately, I think colleges are teaching kids tools, rather than skills. This is all part of the dumbing down of programming. Its no longer "are you a good programmer" but "have you written SQL for Oracle 9?" Cause if you've only written SQL for Oracle 8i, CLEARLY you are unqualified with the job because you haven't used the PRODUCT.
The product is irrelevant, but it is becoming what people care about--- and thus the quality of the software development going on goes down the tubes.
Look at C#-- now we have MS making a language that is good only on their platform!
Yes, except that developers for the microsoft platform are the MINORITY, not the majority.
Yes, MS has a large installed base and a large part of one segment of the market-- but the rest of the industry is not going to adopt C#.
The language is DOA. The only question is will it destroy microsoft in the process, or not.
You can retire early. All you have to do is be financially prudent.
There are many books that will show you how-- from the Motley Fools "You have more than you think" to "Buffettology" to the popular "Wealthy Barber" series.
Its actually quite easy to save up enough money to retire on in 10 or 15 years if you decide you want to do it.
What possible reason could you have to think that you can't do this? Or that generation X cant do it? The stock market is there- and in fact, there is far MORE opportunity to do this than your parents had or the generations before them-- financial instruments are more readily available and cheaper than ever before.
What you can't have is a house that is wastefully big, a new car every 4 years, lots of credit card debt buying crap AND early retirement.
But even living high on the hog (a nice lifestyle without scrimping) I've been able to make alot of progress to early retirement.
And here's the ironic thing-- the stock market crash has gotten me closer FASTER than if it hadn't crashed. (IT didn't crash, but you know what I mean.)
The only think keeping you from this, far as I can tell, is ignorance and attitude. The ignorance is easy to fix, read any of the books I just recommended. The attitude is up to you.
This is just wrong.
What do you use Altivec for? Ripping MP3s? Encoding MP4 video?
The memory architectuer doesn't get in the way of these at all. Think about it-- what is the uncompressed bitrate of DV video or CD data?
Do the math and you'll see that the memory architecture is more than sufficient to keep the altivec processor fed.
What you just repeated is one of the many myths that people spread about the powerpc, but it simply isn't true.
Unfortunately, most people don't do the math.
If you're happy with your 1GHz processor, fine. But don't pretend that current x86 processors at 2+GHz don't wipe the floor with the slower ppc offerings.
Yet another idiot who thinks that the clock rate determines the processor speed.
Yes, idiot is not too strong of a word.
BY the way, the x86 compared to was fully optimized for the pentium FPU. The powerPC was as well, and it "wiped the floor" with the pentium, as you say.
To claim that the only fair comparison is one where the powerpc FPU is not used is absurd.
And to then claim that because this "Fair" comparison wasn't done the faster clock speed of the pentium makes it faster just shows how ignorant you are of processor architecture and performance.
Given that all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, your continued refusal to accept reality earns you this title: bleeding idiot
And of course you're wrong-- your own comparison compared two chips with the SAME CLOCK RATE.
They were labeled differently because the companies labeled them based on different clocks.
But both ran internally at 66MHz.
That pretty much proves my case, idiot.
PS- I love how you think compiling with altivec performance optimization on is "cheating". so, in your view, the only fair comparison is one where the floating point unit is never used? Uh Huh.
his "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
The ironic thing is that BOTH of those processors ran at 66MHz!
Back in those days, motorola labled the speed of the chip based on the speed of the external buss, not the internal clock rate, while Intel used the higher of the two- the internal clock rate.
So, even on clock there is no way the 486 was faster-- and when you look at the architectures, it was absolutely a lot slower.
So for this guy to claim that the 486 blew it away, we know he's just saying what he wants to be true-- any fair comparison would show quite the opposite.
AND revealing his ignorance of the fact that both of those parts had the same internal clock rate!
Clock rates are all about marketing, and nothing about performance.
a P4 2.8 GHz does it at 2.8 GHz (with some parts operating at twice that speed, as was pointed out).
Gee, os it really isn't 2.8GHz? Its twice that speed in some places?
I think you just conceded my point that this number is a totally fabricated marketing term-- even you admit that some places don't run at 2.8GHz.
So, since two ALUs equal "twice the clock rate" then the current PowerPC G4 is an 8GHz chip.
Even if they ARE running at twice the clock rate, the clock rate is STILL IRRELEVANT because how much WORK can be done has very little to do with clock rate.
Clock rate is only relevant when comparing processors of EXACTLY the same design.
When you compare two architectures- intel to AMD or intel to Motorola, and talk about clock rate and performance, you're speaking out of your ass.
Of course they run at 2.8 GHz. That's the clock speed; they can't help but run at 2.8 GHz.
Its unfortunate that being a "geek" has become cool-- there are so many such as yourself who have taken on this label and use it to bash actual engineers.
A modern processor is not like the old days where they had a crystal that resonated at a given frequency to generate the clock. The modern processor uses a phased locked loop, and clocks various parts of the processor at DIFFERENT RATES.
It used to be the clock rate was the rate at which it accessed its internal buss. Well, are you really claiming that the buss for a pentium is 2.8GHz? Motorola continued to use this figure for a long while, after intel started listing the clock rate as the highest clock that exists anywhere on the chip.
Furthermore, the clock rate no longer measures the rate at which instructions are issued-- this varies as the chip executes code. Cach flushes and pipeline flushes, branch prediction failures, and the fact that cisc instructions take variable numbers of clock cycles to execute make the clock rate as a measurement of speed (on cisc architectures like the pentium) pretty pointless. Nevermind that the pentium architecture has an embedded 386 processors on board to handle the non-pentium instructions for backwards compatibility-- depending on whats happening between the two processors (all on the same chip) you never know whether the instruction that was just executed was really going to be used (due to out of order execution.)
The RISC architecture was designed to get around this by making every instruction execute in a single clock. so you can more easily parallelize your processing... thus its quite easy for a processor running at 1GHz to be 4 times as effective as one at 2GHz (because it issues 8 instructions per clock and each one is far more likely to execute in a single clock.)
Intel already played fast and loose by redefining what the clock rate of a chip meant once. And the modern chips are so complicated that there really is no single actual clock value-- the external bus is at one clock rate, the various instruction units run at some fraction of the "clock rate" and the internal memory buss has yet another clock.
Don't insult someone's "geekiness" when you don't understand the basics of processor design. The CISC/RISC split occurred over 10 years ago. And while both camps have learned from each other and adopted technology where they can, the architectures are still VASTLY different-- making your straight on clock rate comparison about as smart as a the guy who says "But you see, it goes to 11!"