Forget Gartner, IDC and all those other companies that do NOT DO RESEARCH and just post reports showing whatever it is they want to show (usually that windows is the One True Way).
To figure this out yourself, you're going to have to do direct research that is specific to your environment. Price the hardware. Figure the average lifespans (for a PC its 2 years, for a Mac, 4 years). Look at the OS costs. Figure out directly the support costs-- eg: an average of 4 incidents per cleint seat per week for Linux, 3 for windows and 1 for Mac. The costs of basic training classes, or hiring a trainer (you can call the trainers and ask them how long it will take and how much it will cost) and all that.
In the end you'll find Macs are cheaper- but don't take my word for it (or garnters or anyone elses) do the research yourself.
Just a year ago when the iPod was announced the slashdot post was full of comments about how it sucked, was too expensive, was inferior to what was already out there, how firewire was uneeded, how it was "Yet another overpriced toy with less features", and all kinds of other ranting and raving.
Now everyone seems to love it. Interesting.
This leads me to further conclusions: People hate/whine/complain about MAcs/OSX/Apple because they have not USED them. now that people have heard a friends iPod, they know the iPod rocks (and have gotten over the knee jerk reaction of a year ago).
So we see people adding support for it to Linux-- notice Apple didn't make it proprietary, they just made it convenient for *THEIR* software and others have been able to hack together software compatible with iTunes and not a peep from apple (Except when they name it xPod) No custom FireWire protocol (and trust me, they could have easily- there are dozens of proprietary random fireWire protocols that some hardware manufacturers use to lock you into their software. Fortunately that trend is on the wane.)
So, maybe Apple's strategy is working. Maybe some people have or will now experience the superior joy that comes with the iPod and realize that an iMac delivers the same quality differential... and stop looking at price and faked performance claims so much.
After all, inside of a year this crowd has gone from whining and complaining about the iPod to asking for Ogg support.
How can you consider living in a country that violates human rights so flagrantly? So, they have relatively open net acess, an inconsistancy. But forbidding satellite dishes or free communication between the citizens (eg: one state run monopoly on broadcasting) is unacceptable. I recommend that you boycott this country, or if you cannot (because of a job or whatever) when you leave write to their dictator for life (that's what singapore has, right?) and tell him that he may be benevolent, but you won't be doing business with singapore in the future.
In answer to your question, you'd need a dedicated person on this end and a lot of bandwidth-- even with good compression shows are still very big.
It could work for a couple shows every once and awhile, but not for a big feed, I don't think.
While its true that the US government also immorally profits from the US airwaves, only letting a few cronies use them, at least we allow people who provide a genuinely better alternative to survive- in this case direct broadcast satellite television.
I even hear people say you can't upgrade powermacs, which is totally absurd.
Medal of Honor on my lowly iMac G4 runs at least 30fps at max resolution and with all the effects turned on. I really doubt that his experience is suffering on a nicer machine (And certainly not compared to a PC- the graphics card does all the work.) If he's getting 60fps instead of 80fps, then its silly to complain- you can't perceive more than about 30 fps anyway.
If he wanted a Ti video card, he could have bought one. I don't see what the big deal is-- PC weenies seem to think that you can't put a different video card in a mac.
Calling someone clueless is an insult. At least when you provide no logical, or rational, or information to support the position. Since you seem to persist in this, I will return in kind:
Learn a bit about Apples products, you fucking idiot, before you open your pie hole again. Ok?
I just built a 2.53 GHz P4, 512MB DDR PC3200, GeForce 4 ti4600, 48X CD-RW, 80GB HD system for $1400.
Good for you. But you're comparing a home built system with commodity parts to a top quality system from a top notch vendor.
If you want to do price comparisons, compare Apples prices to IBMs. IBM is about the only quality PC manufacturer left anymore, now that Dell has gone the way of Gateway.
But its silly to compare something you put together yourself to something produced by a company with a warantee (And a warantee that covers the parts working together, rather than your collection which covers individual parts.) etc.
Furthermore, it doesn't sound like you saved that much money-- a comparable mac would cost about the same, if not less. And again, you're getting a quality system. I'm sure you bought what you think was the best quality parts, but you don't have the 100,000 unit experience with your suppliers that tier one manufacturers do. Hopefully you got good parts, but you don't have the guarantee.
So, based on your example, saying a comparable mac is cheaper is not ridiculous, it seems spot on. You could have saved $400 and gotten an iMac. Not as good a video card, but then that video card is about $400.
Yep, measuring clock speed is a stupid way to try and measure performance.
You are the moron here. I don't mind ignorant people, its ignorant people who run around and insult those who actually know what they are talking about that is the bane of slashdot.
Whatever. I showed the logical flaw in your position. If I'm wrong, you should be able to show me to be wrong logically, rather than resorting to calling me names and listing a long list of conspiracy theories. An example: Your claim that the kennedy's (liberals mind you) had ties to organizaed crime is irrelevant. Its not clear whether its true and it doesn't say a thing about this discussion.
Lets take your example and make it a better one. Say shopkeeper in a small town-- say the towns only general store-- decides not to serve black people because he's a bigot. In a just world, he'd have that right. In your world, he'd be compelled by force to work against his own interests. We both agree that such a policy is irrational-- black people the country over would be angry, his name would be mud, and it would be on CNN within the day. That's the real world-- CNN covers things like that. But it would be his right- he doesn't have to do business with ANYONE. Its in the fucking bill of rights, even. But it would be a really stupid thing to do... cause everyone, black and white, who disagreed with him would go elsewhere. And he certainly wouldn't be stopping black people from buying food, etc. Just only in his store.
Now say he has a chain of stores. You seem to think he could stop black people everywhere, but he wouldn't-- within a day of it hitting CNN some competitor would announce that black people are especially welcome in his stores and our racist idiot will more likely than not be out of business or changing his policies. That's the real world.
Your long list of conspiracy theories-- you even ihnvoke the dreaded "Enron" word, as if Enron meant anything to this discussion. Fraud is a crime and would still be under a just government. Libertarians see fraud as a form of force and would not tolerate it. Are you really so desperate that you have to make up positions to attribute to me in order to knock them down? You really think libertarians see nothing wrong with the actions of enron? Even the implication is an outright lie, or admission of ignorance on your part. I will not grant you the luxury of thinking you don't know what libertarianism is.
Your long list of conspiracy theories only shows that the basis and "reason" (for lack of a better word) for your position is hatred of corporations. This is a common malady of liberals. You hate corporations, and I'm sure you think its because they are evil, but I suspect its because they are successful. They represent what you think you can't have. (Which is only true because you make it true.) The proof of this, of course, is that liberals hate corporations that do not engage in illegal behaviour. For ever enron you guys hate there's a Starbucks which has done nothing wrong, but puts your panties in a wad all over the place.
Hell, the fact they are buying coffee-- that without them would never be sold-- pisses you off because they pay less for it than they charge us when we buy the latte. Yeah, the poor person selling that coffee isn't making as much as they would here in the US, but hey are making more than they would IF STARBUCKS DIDN'T EXIST. Furthermore, you think they were "forced" to sell for a low price because they needed the money-- how idiotic! They CHOSE to sell it because they needed the money. The market sets the prices-- if they want more than their competitors, then they will sell less coffee. If they charge less, they sell more. ITs simple economics.
No, I am beginning to believe your position is that of bigotry and there is no arguing against bigotry. I've provided logic and examples and explanation, and what I've gotten back in return is insults.
IF you had a problem with my logic, you would be able to provide a logical response. That you haven't shows that your problem is not with logical errors on my part.
Remember that x86 processors cut their clock rate to get good battery performance. The x86 design requires a lot of power. So while the G4 is running at full speed, the x86 isn't and that's why you're getting better battery performance-- at the expense of cpu performance.
I'm not trolling or flaming. But you can get a mac and use it as your digital hub and things just work. Plus with firewire becoming the future standard for in home video and audio delivery, you'll have first in class Firewire support with a mac.
And you'll get all this for less than you'd pay for a comparable pc.
(Oh, now I hear the flamers coming "I got an athlon CPU for $200, a top of the line powermac costs $6,000! when I get my CPU in a computer I will have a faster computer and have saved %3000!" Except that it isn't and you wouldn't have. Get a comparable PC from IBM or Toshiba and you pay more.)
Seriously, for AV the digital hub idea on macs work, the software is well supported, and they even look decent amongst your stereo equipment.
Hell, they invented plug and play and they are the best implementation of it so far.
"What you need to see is that there are many forms of force that don't involve physical violence."
BZZT wrong. The example you provided, absurd as it is, does not involve violence and thus does not involve force. You could merely go to another town.
As if the example were plausible to begin with.
You said rich people got that way by stealing the property- now you say some do. Ok, some -- where some is a very small number-- do. But that's irrelevant. It means nothing.
You just want to call rich people thieves-- illogical and irrational as it is-- and you want to try and take one example and pretend like that's everyone. And the reason you want to do this is cause you want to justify being a THIEF YOURSELF and forcing those people to give you money you haven't earned. If that's not your reason, why bring up this bullshit about how rich people stole their money? Its a lie, and you know it. I've provided the statistics-- all you have to do is go look at the forbes richest people list and see how most of them made their own wealth, or look at the books where they've analyzed the situation such as millionaire mind.
I don't confuse philosophy with objective reality-- I know objective reality, and you are objectively in denial of it-- I've pointed out that rich people don't get that way by theft-- logically, they would be in jail and have their money taken away from them, more often than not. Yet you pretend it isn't true.
And you bring up this absurd idea of someone forcing someone else to starve-- that you have to be that desperate to find some "force" that libertarians allow is just amazing.... all to the ends of servicing your fantasy that people aren't responsible for their own actions because they were "forced" to do them, even when no real force was involved.
Show me a company that bought up all the resources and FORCED people to work for them, and I'll point you to Jimmy Hoffa who firebombed businesses that didn't unionize. I don't think you can find a single example on your part, buy Hoffa's antics are well documented.
Objective reality exists-- you can pretend it doesn't and entertain the fantasies you do. But don't talk to me about logic. I've shown the lillogic of your position more than once, and in my experience irrational people cannot be made to see the light-- they have some desperate insecurity that forces them to be irrational. Fine. So be it.
No, I think the issue is that you can't comprehend english.
I know what specint and specfp are. I was around before they were around.
They measure clock speed and call it performance. They don't measure performance.
It gets tiring dealing with half wit idiots such as yourself. The net was much better before AOL. And why is it the average poster on slashdot seems to be a twelve year old who just managed to successfully install linux and so he thinks he's 1334?
Come to me when you've built a computer from scratch-- and I mean, designed the PCB, wrote the bios and burnded yourself with a soldering iron. Then you can talk about who knows what you fuckwit.
Its really become quite clear, as I said originally: Those such as yourself, think clock rate is performance. And a "benchmark" that measures clock rate is what you will then use.
After many jobs in the real world, anyone who blows a suggestion from a boss off deserves to be fired.
Either explain the technical issues of it and listen to the business issues, or DO IT.
If you say you're going to do it and you don't then you don't really want the job too much.
sure there are some PHBs, but the only correct response to them is with integrity- treat them like they know whats going on and you'll get further with everyone else in the company. No company is all PHBs.
Sounds to me like you're the one who's never had a job with responsibility.
This is one of those life tests, and you should not fail.
When some clueless executive suggests something, the correct response is *always* to respond taking them seriously. IF what they suggest doesn't make sense, explain why. You don't have to go into detail, for instance: "We can't run IIS on our Linux servers because Microsoft doesn't support Linux for IIS, however Apache does the job well and is proven technology. This route saves us about $250,000 in annual license fees."
Geeks have a tendency to get huffy. Or worse, to pretend like its legitimate and put it on the "will investigate" list hoping it will just be dropped. Doing that will only make you look bad when you don't provide the results of the investigation later.
IF what you have is a PHB (as opposed to merely a non-geek executive) then you MUST respond, or you will eventually be out of a job. IF you let PHBs tell you that you HAVE to install IIS on linux, then the gauntlet is thrown-- either you stand up to them right then and there, or they make you their bitch.
There are some managers with the stupid idea that you have to be strong and force people to comply with your wishes when it seems like they don't want to, so if they don't want to install IIS on linux, then by golly you better make them, or they will never respect you! And unfortunately, sometimes these managers pick absurd things to get huffy over. But you have to respond immediately pointing out the fallacy of the idea.
IF they disagree with you, then you should understand their issue-- likely they are considering something other than technology-- like they got a great deal on sun boxes and it sure helped that other project. This is always in your best interest-- because if you blow them off and ignore thier issues, then you will not get support later when the time comes. IF you stand up to them and tell them why some idea won't work, then you may well get a variation of the idea back in response that DOES. That that variation will likely accomplish some goal you know nothing about but is directly related to your job security.
At my last job (I'm freelance now) the engineers groused constantly about management and marketing. They acted as if everyone who wasn't an engineer was an idiot. They didn't know how good they had it-- at that company executive management and marketing actually listened to what engineers said, rather than undermining them, but still you heard nothing but bitching from the engineers. Everything was a fight, and thus, nothing worked-- cause they were fighting amongst themselves as well.
The definition of "Competent" for an executive is not being able to recompile a linux kernel. IF you want to go far, you will learn to bridge that gap and figure out how to meet the issues he's concerned about, even if he fails to phrase them in the engineering-correct way. Most executives really are competant - and that includes marketing guys-- you just have to add their value to yours, not fight it. And you have to understand what they really are bringing to the table.
Occasionally you get a PHB that's really just out to make your life miserable, but even then, answering the questions on the spot makes his job harder. A competent executive will respect and appreciate the quick answers.
You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.
I love how apple "ripped off the dock" from operating systems that were released well after NeXTSTEP.
We all know they have amazing powers of time travel-- "stealing future technology for the needs of today!"
Sheesh.
Nevermind that the entirety of the look and feel of every Linux box is a blatent ripoff of the creation of Apple computer (with a trivial amount licensed from Xerox.)
If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.
Oh, don't be silly. In this situation all the reasonable people get the source and the Free-As-In-Totalitarian Nazis are the only ones who don't get it.
As to your fud about Apple suing you, you'd better provide some examples rather than just spouting such bullshit.
Show me a single example of Apple suing a developer who complied with their Open Source license.
Its OPEN SOURCE. TM and Certified.
Just cause you're a socialist all-property-must-be-free doesn't mean Apple didn't release their software as OPEN SOURCE.
Clearly we're using liberal to mean two different things, and I understand what you mean by liberal now. I wasn't talking about the same set of people when I used the word liberal before, as you realized.
I think education is a good thing. I'm pro education. In fact, one of the biggest reasons I oppose our current education system is because it doesn't work. If it were working, I might be inclined to say that the good created outweighs the damage to people that occurs by taking their money by force. But it doesn't.
One thing I've come to realize is that this is not a coincidence--- whenever you fund something by forcibly extracting wealth, what you end up funding is going to be of poor quality. The reason for this is human nature- up and down the line people think its "free money". But there's another component-- the forcible extraction of funding eliminates the effect of market forces.
If people were paying for their own education, then they would shop around, find a better deal, and if there wasn't one, they'd create one.
Here we have the situation where you HAVE to send your kids to public school, by law, and you have to go thru hoops to home educate them. You can't just band together with a dozen other families and form your own education collective, where each family has one person teach a subject on a rotating basis (eg: a class of twelve to twenty four kids and every day they get an all day lesson in a given subject by one of the parents) -- or any of a number of other models.
My point being, since this "free" education is required by law, people just send their kids to school and start thinking about it as the "schools problem". This is something I've heard repeatedly from educators, and just the other day some (excuse the word) liberal educator on NPR was saying how black kids are at such a disadvantage because their parents think of education as the schools problem.
Atlas Shrugged (we were talking about that originally, right?) presents and objective morality. It isn't imposed from upon high, it is presented with the instructions that you should use your own judgment and determine independently if it is correct or not.
Moral relativism (Which I used to practice) pretty much believes in situational morality-- but in that case there can be no such thing as human rights. All concepts of morality in the relativism case are merely one group attempting to impose their view of morality on the other.
The alternative to this is to attempt to define an objective, universal, morality. This provides the flexibility of moral relativism -- judgment replaces dogma and thus situations can be accounted for where they aren't in christian style fundamentalism-- without the complete lack of philosophical basis of moral relativism. Moral relativism is essentially throwing out the philosophical baby with the dogma bathwater!
If I'm not confusing threads and you have read Atlas Shrugged, did you find fault with the judgment based morality provided in Galt's speech? What did you think of the speech on money given by Francisco Anaconda at the party?
To bring this into highlight, my problem with unions is not that they exist, but that they are able to violate people's rights by interfering with the right of free association and free trade of labor. They can get you fired if you don't join the union and that is unacceptable-- that the law allows this is totally unacceptable.
I've found that the philosophy provided by Atlas makes many difficult questions easier. For, I think a typical liberal (my definition) if they understand the problems with unions, they have qualms and have to just shut down those qualms because they want to believe in "Workers rights". Their propaganda and thinking links these together, along with a lot of hate speech about "union busters" thus they start thinking anybody who criticizes unions just wants to oppress workers.
Basically, I'm saying that there are many forms of force that don't involve me sticking a gun to your head but that leave you with the same lack of real choice.
This encapsulates the problem with your position. You illogically believe that someone who FREELY CHOOSES to do something, without force, is not responsible for those choices because they were "forced to".
I'm still waiting for you to provide examples showing that rich people got rich by stealing property.
Its nice to think that and it makes those who are poor feel better for a little while because they can assume that their position comes because opportunity was stolen from them-- but its not true, and it certainly doesn't help the poor change their situation in life- it provides and incentive not to.
The percentage of rich people who got that way by theft or by inheriting property that was stolen is vanishingly small. You made this claim, and you have not supported it.
Your whole idea of economics is based on this idea that all the rich people got that way thru theft, yet this is an absurd proposition.
1) Universal education 2) Scientific skepticism 3) Rejection of dogma 4) Rejection of priveliged birth (royalty) 5) Freedom of thought.
Sorry, I'm looking for liberalisn the political movement, rather than what you seem to see as a philosophical movement. Only the first of these is a political position, really.
But here we go:
Universal Education: Having this as an ideal doesn't violate human rights, but the political enacting of this ideal does. Rather than making sure an education is available to everyone, you steal from some to educate others. That violates the rights of those who are having their money taken from them (by force) to pay for the education of others.
2) Scientific skepticism This isn't a distinction-- objectivists have this as a core belief. And in fact, I would say that most people who call themselves liberal do not practice this.
3) Rejection of dogma This is quite interesting in light of your previous choice-- it seems that they conflict. If you reject dogma (eg: any authoritarian set of morals) you have to reject the scientific method as it is an authoritarians set of morals. I assume you mean the rejection of religious dogma, in which case this also isn't unique to liberals. Objectivists and libertarians both reject religious dogma. Conservatives don't though.
4) Rejection of priveliged birth (royalty) Well, we don't live in a monarchy, so this ideal isn't saying much. If you mean that people who are wealthy shouldn't be allowed to pass their wealth to their kids, then, again, you are advocating the theft of property from people by force.
5) Freedom of thought. Doesn't violate any human rights.
Let me clarify a bit about how taxes are theft. IF you have personal soverignity-- eg: you own your body, something liberals agree with when it comes to abortion-- then you then also own the decision of how you use that body. When you are a free person and you enter into an agreement to do labor for someone else in exchange for property, you are essentially renting your body (which you own) in exchange for property (which has value). If you didn't receive the property that was agreed on, you would stop participating, and you would be a victim of a crime. I assume you agree with me so far.
Next since you freely consented to rent your body for that property, that property thus does belong to you. It is the product of your labor.
Anyone who then comes and takes that product (eg: in the form of taxes) without proir explicit consent, is stealing from you. A mugger who shoves a gun in your face is no more justified in doing so than the local taxing authority-- the taxing authority looses its moral right to your money because it did not obtain your prior consent to be taxed. Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of paying one bill for a variety of services because you have not consented to those services (and the bill is for far more than the market value of those services.)
Thus, taxation, like unions, are a third party using force to extract value from people that they did not consent to give. In a sense, for all the time that you are using your body to earn that money that is later forcibly extracted from you, you are the slave of the person you ware working for-- a slave to the state.
Thus anyone- whether he calls himself a liberal or conservative, and both groups do- who supports the forced extration of labor without compensation, is violating human rights.
On another point, if you reject dogma, how can you ever agree with anyone? How can you agree with anyone on any kind of common basis? If you reject all concepts of authoritarin information or morality, on what basis can you make any decision about what is morally correct? Murder is not illegal because of religious dogma, it is illegal because it violates the universal reality of human rights.
A lot of arguing goes on without ever addressing what the foundation of human rights is-- you can't argue for or against it without really identifying it-- and, more importantly, if it isn't universal, then it is merely the expression of your will.
Some may think its immoral for two guys to marry, but unless they make that argument based on some universal morality (The dogma you reject) they are merely imposing their will. (An act that clinton took when he signed the "Defense of marriage act".)
Thus most arguing about political issues gets nowhere because both parties are attempting to force their will, rather than arguing from a position of agreement on some universal morality. I suspect that the liberal rejection of dogma amounts to "whatever I want to do, even if it violates others rights, is ok" in practice, if not intent.
I've been using a 12 foot FireWire cable for awhile no with no trouble.
Firewire2 will allow optical fiber as an alternative which has essentially an unlimited run lenght. Well, unlimited inside of an office, not kilometers.
I think that even Gigabit Ethernet will not provide the same performance as Firewire. Effectively you can get 500Mbps over GigE and thats' awfully close to current Firewire's 400Mbps-- - except that Firewire will sustain that transfer rate, and I'm not sure any ethernet can. But I could be wrong.
There are tradeoffs for both. If you want to link a cluster of machines and drives at high performance without going to FCAL, Firewire is a great way to go. IF you want to link a lot of computer to the storage, then Gigabit ethernet is probably the way to go-- but that ethernet could terminate in a server that has a Firewire network behind it linking a bunch of drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Gartner, IDC and all those other companies that do NOT DO RESEARCH and just post reports showing whatever it is they want to show (usually that windows is the One True Way).
To figure this out yourself, you're going to have to do direct research that is specific to your environment. Price the hardware. Figure the average lifespans (for a PC its 2 years, for a Mac, 4 years). Look at the OS costs. Figure out directly the support costs-- eg: an average of 4 incidents per cleint seat per week for Linux, 3 for windows and 1 for Mac. The costs of basic training classes, or hiring a trainer (you can call the trainers and ask them how long it will take and how much it will cost) and all that.
In the end you'll find Macs are cheaper- but don't take my word for it (or garnters or anyone elses) do the research yourself.
Its the only way to be sure.
Just a year ago when the iPod was announced the slashdot post was full of comments about how it sucked, was too expensive, was inferior to what was already out there, how firewire was uneeded, how it was "Yet another overpriced toy with less features", and all kinds of other ranting and raving.
Now everyone seems to love it. Interesting.
This leads me to further conclusions: People hate/whine/complain about MAcs/OSX/Apple because they have not USED them. now that people have heard a friends iPod, they know the iPod rocks (and have gotten over the knee jerk reaction of a year ago).
So we see people adding support for it to Linux-- notice Apple didn't make it proprietary, they just made it convenient for *THEIR* software and others have been able to hack together software compatible with iTunes and not a peep from apple (Except when they name it xPod) No custom FireWire protocol (and trust me, they could have easily- there are dozens of proprietary random fireWire protocols that some hardware manufacturers use to lock you into their software. Fortunately that trend is on the wane.)
So, maybe Apple's strategy is working. Maybe some people have or will now experience the superior joy that comes with the iPod and realize that an iMac delivers the same quality differential... and stop looking at price and faked performance claims so much.
After all, inside of a year this crowd has gone from whining and complaining about the iPod to asking for Ogg support.
How can you consider living in a country that violates human rights so flagrantly? So, they have relatively open net acess, an inconsistancy. But forbidding satellite dishes or free communication between the citizens (eg: one state run monopoly on broadcasting) is unacceptable. I recommend that you boycott this country, or if you cannot (because of a job or whatever) when you leave write to their dictator for life (that's what singapore has, right?) and tell him that he may be benevolent, but you won't be doing business with singapore in the future.
In answer to your question, you'd need a dedicated person on this end and a lot of bandwidth-- even with good compression shows are still very big.
It could work for a couple shows every once and awhile, but not for a big feed, I don't think.
While its true that the US government also immorally profits from the US airwaves, only letting a few cronies use them, at least we allow people who provide a genuinely better alternative to survive- in this case direct broadcast satellite television.
I've never had MOHAA crash on me.
I love how you're telling me how UT2k3 won't run fast on a Mac -=- this is a game that isn't even out yet.
You're just expressing your bigotry. You don't know how UT will perform.
Macs, generally, are faster and a bit cheaper than PCs. Even for gaming.
Why is it people think you can' upgrade imacs?
I even hear people say you can't upgrade powermacs, which is totally absurd.
Medal of Honor on my lowly iMac G4 runs at least 30fps at max resolution and with all the effects turned on. I really doubt that his experience is suffering on a nicer machine (And certainly not compared to a PC- the graphics card does all the work.) If he's getting 60fps instead of 80fps, then its silly to complain- you can't perceive more than about 30 fps anyway.
If he wanted a Ti video card, he could have bought one. I don't see what the big deal is-- PC weenies seem to think that you can't put a different video card in a mac.
Calling someone clueless is an insult. At least when you provide no logical, or rational, or information to support the position. Since you seem to persist in this, I will return in kind:
Learn a bit about Apples products, you fucking idiot, before you open your pie hole again. Ok?
I just built a 2.53 GHz P4, 512MB DDR PC3200, GeForce 4 ti4600, 48X CD-RW, 80GB HD system for $1400.
Good for you. But you're comparing a home built system with commodity parts to a top quality system from a top notch vendor.
If you want to do price comparisons, compare Apples prices to IBMs. IBM is about the only quality PC manufacturer left anymore, now that Dell has gone the way of Gateway.
But its silly to compare something you put together yourself to something produced by a company with a warantee (And a warantee that covers the parts working together, rather than your collection which covers individual parts.) etc.
Furthermore, it doesn't sound like you saved that much money-- a comparable mac would cost about the same, if not less. And again, you're getting a quality system. I'm sure you bought what you think was the best quality parts, but you don't have the 100,000 unit experience with your suppliers that tier one manufacturers do. Hopefully you got good parts, but you don't have the guarantee.
So, based on your example, saying a comparable mac is cheaper is not ridiculous, it seems spot on. You could have saved $400 and gotten an iMac. Not as good a video card, but then that video card is about $400.
If you wish to disagree with me, then do so on the subject matter.
Insults only tell us about you, not me.
By the way, the request was for "Alternatives to" UPnPray. Sheesh.
Yep, measuring clock speed is a stupid way to try and measure performance.
You are the moron here. I don't mind ignorant people, its ignorant people who run around and insult those who actually know what they are talking about that is the bane of slashdot.
And you think you live in the real world.
Whatever. I showed the logical flaw in your position. If I'm wrong, you should be able to show me to be wrong logically, rather than resorting to calling me names and listing a long list of conspiracy theories. An example: Your claim that the kennedy's (liberals mind you) had ties to organizaed crime is irrelevant. Its not clear whether its true and it doesn't say a thing about this discussion.
Lets take your example and make it a better one. Say shopkeeper in a small town-- say the towns only general store-- decides not to serve black people because he's a bigot. In a just world, he'd have that right. In your world, he'd be compelled by force to work against his own interests. We both agree that such a policy is irrational-- black people the country over would be angry, his name would be mud, and it would be on CNN within the day. That's the real world-- CNN covers things like that. But it would be his right- he doesn't have to do business with ANYONE. Its in the fucking bill of rights, even. But it would be a really stupid thing to do... cause everyone, black and white, who disagreed with him would go elsewhere. And he certainly wouldn't be stopping black people from buying food, etc. Just only in his store.
Now say he has a chain of stores. You seem to think he could stop black people everywhere, but he wouldn't-- within a day of it hitting CNN some competitor would announce that black people are especially welcome in his stores and our racist idiot will more likely than not be out of business or changing his policies. That's the real world.
Your long list of conspiracy theories-- you even ihnvoke the dreaded "Enron" word, as if Enron meant anything to this discussion. Fraud is a crime and would still be under a just government. Libertarians see fraud as a form of force and would not tolerate it. Are you really so desperate that you have to make up positions to attribute to me in order to knock them down? You really think libertarians see nothing wrong with the actions of enron? Even the implication is an outright lie, or admission of ignorance on your part. I will not grant you the luxury of thinking you don't know what libertarianism is.
Your long list of conspiracy theories only shows that the basis and "reason" (for lack of a better word) for your position is hatred of corporations. This is a common malady of liberals. You hate corporations, and I'm sure you think its because they are evil, but I suspect its because they are successful. They represent what you think you can't have. (Which is only true because you make it true.) The proof of this, of course, is that liberals hate corporations that do not engage in illegal behaviour. For ever enron you guys hate there's a Starbucks which has done nothing wrong, but puts your panties in a wad all over the place.
Hell, the fact they are buying coffee-- that without them would never be sold-- pisses you off because they pay less for it than they charge us when we buy the latte. Yeah, the poor person selling that coffee isn't making as much as they would here in the US, but hey are making more than they would IF STARBUCKS DIDN'T EXIST. Furthermore, you think they were "forced" to sell for a low price because they needed the money-- how idiotic! They CHOSE to sell it because they needed the money. The market sets the prices-- if they want more than their competitors, then they will sell less coffee. If they charge less, they sell more. ITs simple economics.
No, I am beginning to believe your position is that of bigotry and there is no arguing against bigotry. I've provided logic and examples and explanation, and what I've gotten back in return is insults.
IF you had a problem with my logic, you would be able to provide a logical response. That you haven't shows that your problem is not with logical errors on my part.
Remember that x86 processors cut their clock rate to get good battery performance. The x86 design requires a lot of power. So while the G4 is running at full speed, the x86 isn't and that's why you're getting better battery performance-- at the expense of cpu performance.
Its called Macintosh.
I'm not trolling or flaming. But you can get a mac and use it as your digital hub and things just work. Plus with firewire becoming the future standard for in home video and audio delivery, you'll have first in class Firewire support with a mac.
And you'll get all this for less than you'd pay for a comparable pc.
(Oh, now I hear the flamers coming "I got an athlon CPU for $200, a top of the line powermac costs $6,000! when I get my CPU in a computer I will have a faster computer and have saved %3000!" Except that it isn't and you wouldn't have. Get a comparable PC from IBM or Toshiba and you pay more.)
Seriously, for AV the digital hub idea on macs work, the software is well supported, and they even look decent amongst your stereo equipment.
Hell, they invented plug and play and they are the best implementation of it so far.
Clearly it is you who does not understand logic.
"What you need to see is that there are many forms of force that don't involve physical violence."
BZZT wrong. The example you provided, absurd as it is, does not involve violence and thus does not involve force. You could merely go to another town.
As if the example were plausible to begin with.
You said rich people got that way by stealing the property- now you say some do. Ok, some -- where some is a very small number-- do. But that's irrelevant. It means nothing.
You just want to call rich people thieves-- illogical and irrational as it is-- and you want to try and take one example and pretend like that's everyone. And the reason you want to do this is cause you want to justify being a THIEF YOURSELF and forcing those people to give you money you haven't earned. If that's not your reason, why bring up this bullshit about how rich people stole their money? Its a lie, and you know it. I've provided the statistics-- all you have to do is go look at the forbes richest people list and see how most of them made their own wealth, or look at the books where they've analyzed the situation such as millionaire mind.
I don't confuse philosophy with objective reality-- I know objective reality, and you are objectively in denial of it-- I've pointed out that rich people don't get that way by theft-- logically, they would be in jail and have their money taken away from them, more often than not. Yet you pretend it isn't true.
And you bring up this absurd idea of someone forcing someone else to starve-- that you have to be that desperate to find some "force" that libertarians allow is just amazing.... all to the ends of servicing your fantasy that people aren't responsible for their own actions because they were "forced" to do them, even when no real force was involved.
Show me a company that bought up all the resources and FORCED people to work for them, and I'll point you to Jimmy Hoffa who firebombed businesses that didn't unionize. I don't think you can find a single example on your part, buy Hoffa's antics are well documented.
Objective reality exists-- you can pretend it doesn't and entertain the fantasies you do. But don't talk to me about logic. I've shown the lillogic of your position more than once, and in my experience irrational people cannot be made to see the light-- they have some desperate insecurity that forces them to be irrational. Fine. So be it.
But we both know the truth.
No, I think the issue is that you can't comprehend english.
I know what specint and specfp are. I was around before they were around.
They measure clock speed and call it performance. They don't measure performance.
It gets tiring dealing with half wit idiots such as yourself. The net was much better before AOL. And why is it the average poster on slashdot seems to be a twelve year old who just managed to successfully install linux and so he thinks he's 1334?
Come to me when you've built a computer from scratch-- and I mean, designed the PCB, wrote the bios and burnded yourself with a soldering iron. Then you can talk about who knows what you fuckwit.
Its really become quite clear, as I said originally: Those such as yourself, think clock rate is performance. And a "benchmark" that measures clock rate is what you will then use.
you're real happy
After many jobs in the real world, anyone who blows a suggestion from a boss off deserves to be fired.
Either explain the technical issues of it and listen to the business issues, or DO IT.
If you say you're going to do it and you don't then you don't really want the job too much.
sure there are some PHBs, but the only correct response to them is with integrity- treat them like they know whats going on and you'll get further with everyone else in the company. No company is all PHBs.
Sounds to me like you're the one who's never had a job with responsibility.
This is one of those life tests, and you should not fail.
When some clueless executive suggests something, the correct response is *always* to respond taking them seriously. IF what they suggest doesn't make sense, explain why. You don't have to go into detail, for instance: "We can't run IIS on our Linux servers because Microsoft doesn't support Linux for IIS, however Apache does the job well and is proven technology. This route saves us about $250,000 in annual license fees."
Geeks have a tendency to get huffy. Or worse, to pretend like its legitimate and put it on the "will investigate" list hoping it will just be dropped. Doing that will only make you look bad when you don't provide the results of the investigation later.
IF what you have is a PHB (as opposed to merely a non-geek executive) then you MUST respond, or you will eventually be out of a job. IF you let PHBs tell you that you HAVE to install IIS on linux, then the gauntlet is thrown-- either you stand up to them right then and there, or they make you their bitch.
There are some managers with the stupid idea that you have to be strong and force people to comply with your wishes when it seems like they don't want to, so if they don't want to install IIS on linux, then by golly you better make them, or they will never respect you! And unfortunately, sometimes these managers pick absurd things to get huffy over. But you have to respond immediately pointing out the fallacy of the idea.
IF they disagree with you, then you should understand their issue-- likely they are considering something other than technology-- like they got a great deal on sun boxes and it sure helped that other project. This is always in your best interest-- because if you blow them off and ignore thier issues, then you will not get support later when the time comes. IF you stand up to them and tell them why some idea won't work, then you may well get a variation of the idea back in response that DOES. That that variation will likely accomplish some goal you know nothing about but is directly related to your job security.
At my last job (I'm freelance now) the engineers groused constantly about management and marketing. They acted as if everyone who wasn't an engineer was an idiot. They didn't know how good they had it-- at that company executive management and marketing actually listened to what engineers said, rather than undermining them, but still you heard nothing but bitching from the engineers. Everything was a fight, and thus, nothing worked-- cause they were fighting amongst themselves as well.
The definition of "Competent" for an executive is not being able to recompile a linux kernel. IF you want to go far, you will learn to bridge that gap and figure out how to meet the issues he's concerned about, even if he fails to phrase them in the engineering-correct way. Most executives really are competant - and that includes marketing guys-- you just have to add their value to yours, not fight it. And you have to understand what they really are bringing to the table.
Occasionally you get a PHB that's really just out to make your life miserable, but even then, answering the questions on the spot makes his job harder. A competent executive will respect and appreciate the quick answers.
It might even make the meeting worthwhile.
Oh, that must be it. IT couldn't possibly be the fact that Quicktime uses codecs under license from other companies. No, no, it couldn't be that.
Or the fact that Apple pays a license fee for EVERY installation of Quicktime... No couldn't be that either.
Sheesh. You're an idiot.
You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.
I love how apple "ripped off the dock" from operating systems that were released well after NeXTSTEP.
We all know they have amazing powers of time travel-- "stealing future technology for the needs of today!"
Sheesh.
Nevermind that the entirety of the look and feel of every Linux box is a blatent ripoff of the creation of Apple computer (with a trivial amount licensed from Xerox.)
No, lets pretend that isn't the case. sure.
APSL only works to take away the rights of the users
Are you really so stupid that you think a license granting rights to source code with conditions is "taking away" rights?
They cant' take away rights to their property that was never given.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO APPLE PRODUCTS OR SOURCE.
Furthermore, its clear that you think suing somebody who STEALS YOUR PROPERTY is a violation of rights.
Great. Can I have your car?
If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.
Oh, don't be silly. In this situation all the reasonable people get the source and the Free-As-In-Totalitarian Nazis are the only ones who don't get it.
As to your fud about Apple suing you, you'd better provide some examples rather than just spouting such bullshit.
Show me a single example of Apple suing a developer who complied with their Open Source license.
Its OPEN SOURCE. TM and Certified.
Just cause you're a socialist all-property-must-be-free doesn't mean Apple didn't release their software as OPEN SOURCE.
And if you don't like it, fine. We don't care.
Clearly we're using liberal to mean two different things, and I understand what you mean by liberal now. I wasn't talking about the same set of people when I used the word liberal before, as you realized.
I think education is a good thing. I'm pro education. In fact, one of the biggest reasons I oppose our current education system is because it doesn't work. If it were working, I might be inclined to say that the good created outweighs the damage to people that occurs by taking their money by force. But it doesn't.
One thing I've come to realize is that this is not a coincidence--- whenever you fund something by forcibly extracting wealth, what you end up funding is going to be of poor quality. The reason for this is human nature- up and down the line people think its "free money". But there's another component-- the forcible extraction of funding eliminates the effect of market forces.
If people were paying for their own education, then they would shop around, find a better deal, and if there wasn't one, they'd create one.
Here we have the situation where you HAVE to send your kids to public school, by law, and you have to go thru hoops to home educate them. You can't just band together with a dozen other families and form your own education collective, where each family has one person teach a subject on a rotating basis (eg: a class of twelve to twenty four kids and every day they get an all day lesson in a given subject by one of the parents) -- or any of a number of other models.
My point being, since this "free" education is required by law, people just send their kids to school and start thinking about it as the "schools problem". This is something I've heard repeatedly from educators, and just the other day some (excuse the word) liberal educator on NPR was saying how black kids are at such a disadvantage because their parents think of education as the schools problem.
Atlas Shrugged (we were talking about that originally, right?) presents and objective morality. It isn't imposed from upon high, it is presented with the instructions that you should use your own judgment and determine independently if it is correct or not.
Moral relativism (Which I used to practice) pretty much believes in situational morality-- but in that case there can be no such thing as human rights. All concepts of morality in the relativism case are merely one group attempting to impose their view of morality on the other.
The alternative to this is to attempt to define an objective, universal, morality. This provides the flexibility of moral relativism -- judgment replaces dogma and thus situations can be accounted for where they aren't in christian style fundamentalism-- without the complete lack of philosophical basis of moral relativism. Moral relativism is essentially throwing out the philosophical baby with the dogma bathwater!
If I'm not confusing threads and you have read Atlas Shrugged, did you find fault with the judgment based morality provided in Galt's speech? What did you think of the speech on money given by Francisco Anaconda at the party?
To bring this into highlight, my problem with unions is not that they exist, but that they are able to violate people's rights by interfering with the right of free association and free trade of labor. They can get you fired if you don't join the union and that is unacceptable-- that the law allows this is totally unacceptable.
I've found that the philosophy provided by Atlas makes many difficult questions easier. For, I think a typical liberal (my definition) if they understand the problems with unions, they have qualms and have to just shut down those qualms because they want to believe in "Workers rights". Their propaganda and thinking links these together, along with a lot of hate speech about "union busters" thus they start thinking anybody who criticizes unions just wants to oppress workers.
Yes, my point exactly. You measure clock speed and call it "performance".
Apparently it is you who is ignorant of processor architectures, and it is not my responsibility to educate you.
The idea that Apple would trade a high performance processor architecture for a low performance (At absurd power requirements) one is laughable.
Keep wishing for that validation-- but you're going to be disappointed.
Basically, I'm saying that there are many forms of force that don't involve me sticking a gun to your head but that leave you with the same lack of real choice.
This encapsulates the problem with your position. You illogically believe that someone who FREELY CHOOSES to do something, without force, is not responsible for those choices because they were "forced to".
I'm still waiting for you to provide examples showing that rich people got rich by stealing property.
Its nice to think that and it makes those who are poor feel better for a little while because they can assume that their position comes because opportunity was stolen from them-- but its not true, and it certainly doesn't help the poor change their situation in life- it provides and incentive not to.
The percentage of rich people who got that way by theft or by inheriting property that was stolen is vanishingly small. You made this claim, and you have not supported it.
Your whole idea of economics is based on this idea that all the rich people got that way thru theft, yet this is an absurd proposition.
1) Universal education
2) Scientific skepticism
3) Rejection of dogma
4) Rejection of priveliged birth (royalty)
5) Freedom of thought.
Sorry, I'm looking for liberalisn the political movement, rather than what you seem to see as a philosophical movement. Only the first of these is a political position, really.
But here we go:
Universal Education: Having this as an ideal doesn't violate human rights, but the political enacting of this ideal does. Rather than making sure an education is available to everyone, you steal from some to educate others. That violates the rights of those who are having their money taken from them (by force) to pay for the education of others.
2) Scientific skepticism
This isn't a distinction-- objectivists have this as a core belief. And in fact, I would say that most people who call themselves liberal do not practice this.
3) Rejection of dogma
This is quite interesting in light of your previous choice-- it seems that they conflict. If you reject dogma (eg: any authoritarian set of morals) you have to reject the scientific method as it is an authoritarians set of morals. I assume you mean the rejection of religious dogma, in which case this also isn't unique to liberals. Objectivists and libertarians both reject religious dogma. Conservatives don't though.
4) Rejection of priveliged birth (royalty)
Well, we don't live in a monarchy, so this ideal isn't saying much. If you mean that people who are wealthy shouldn't be allowed to pass their wealth to their kids, then, again, you are advocating the theft of property from people by force.
5) Freedom of thought.
Doesn't violate any human rights.
Let me clarify a bit about how taxes are theft. IF you have personal soverignity-- eg: you own your body, something liberals agree with when it comes to abortion-- then you then also own the decision of how you use that body. When you are a free person and you enter into an agreement to do labor for someone else in exchange for property, you are essentially renting your body (which you own) in exchange for property (which has value). If you didn't receive the property that was agreed on, you would stop participating, and you would be a victim of a crime. I assume you agree with me so far.
Next since you freely consented to rent your body for that property, that property thus does belong to you. It is the product of your labor.
Anyone who then comes and takes that product (eg: in the form of taxes) without proir explicit consent, is stealing from you. A mugger who shoves a gun in your face is no more justified in doing so than the local taxing authority-- the taxing authority looses its moral right to your money because it did not obtain your prior consent to be taxed. Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of paying one bill for a variety of services because you have not consented to those services (and the bill is for far more than the market value of those services.)
Thus, taxation, like unions, are a third party using force to extract value from people that they did not consent to give. In a sense, for all the time that you are using your body to earn that money that is later forcibly extracted from you, you are the slave of the person you ware working for-- a slave to the state.
Thus anyone- whether he calls himself a liberal or conservative, and both groups do- who supports the forced extration of labor without compensation, is violating human rights.
On another point, if you reject dogma, how can you ever agree with anyone? How can you agree with anyone on any kind of common basis? If you reject all concepts of authoritarin information or morality, on what basis can you make any decision about what is morally correct? Murder is not illegal because of religious dogma, it is illegal because it violates the universal reality of human rights.
A lot of arguing goes on without ever addressing what the foundation of human rights is-- you can't argue for or against it without really identifying it-- and, more importantly, if it isn't universal, then it is merely the expression of your will.
Some may think its immoral for two guys to marry, but unless they make that argument based on some universal morality (The dogma you reject) they are merely imposing their will. (An act that clinton took when he signed the "Defense of marriage act".)
Thus most arguing about political issues gets nowhere because both parties are attempting to force their will, rather than arguing from a position of agreement on some universal morality. I suspect that the liberal rejection of dogma amounts to "whatever I want to do, even if it violates others rights, is ok" in practice, if not intent.
I've been using a 12 foot FireWire cable for awhile no with no trouble.
Firewire2 will allow optical fiber as an alternative which has essentially an unlimited run lenght. Well, unlimited inside of an office, not kilometers.
I think that even Gigabit Ethernet will not provide the same performance as Firewire. Effectively you can get 500Mbps over GigE and thats' awfully close to current Firewire's 400Mbps-- - except that Firewire will sustain that transfer rate, and I'm not sure any ethernet can. But I could be wrong.
There are tradeoffs for both. If you want to link a cluster of machines and drives at high performance without going to FCAL, Firewire is a great way to go. IF you want to link a lot of computer to the storage, then Gigabit ethernet is probably the way to go-- but that ethernet could terminate in a server that has a Firewire network behind it linking a bunch of drives.