Well, the answer is that sometimes they're quite similar... On the 800Mhz, reduced drops it down to 667, and turns off the L3 cache. On a 667, it just turns off the L3 cache.
My point was that the powerbooks get good battery life even without flipping it down to reduced, when it comes to trolling I admit nothing... nothing!
instead of laughing in their face (so professional!), why not buy them a mac? iBooks and TiBooks both have good battery lives, and they don't throttle back the processor because of poor processor engineering.
30 to 40 minutes? you need a new laptop, my friend.
My TiBook can watch just under 2 DVDs, full-screen, before the battery goes out. That's probably around 3 1/2 hours or so. Enjoy your "portable" computer, I'll enjoy my "mobile" laptop.
I just made a portable ogg player out of a flight case with a 19" rack in it, a VA Linux server, a LaCie LCD panel, and a 2001 Toyota Solara. asking price: $45,000. in stock now!
Also available, above system installed in a 1998 Mercedes SL500. asking price: $69,500.
That's an excellent point, but there's another more important one. 95% of the Ogg fanboys are cheap. They're not going to pay an extra $50 or $100 for an ogg-enabled iPod, and the general public doesn't give a fuck (flying or otherwise) about ogg, so they won't pay anything extra for ogg support.
So why would anybody support it? Until the costs of implementing ogg are damned near close to $0, nobody's going to spend the time and money implementing the code, integrating it all, testing it and supporting it.
y'know, it takes a special kind of retard to interpret my post as meaning that i want to replace all neccessary staff with mid-level sunfire.
of course you still need people to write the code to run on the boxes, people to test it, people to document it and people to monitor it. but if spending on money allows you to hire two fewer engineers (or lately, to not lay off two engineers), that's a good thing. after all, companies that don't make money go out of business, and then nobody has a job.
A lot of people are assuming that these people cheated in order to up their stats (because seti stats get ya mad bitches!). I don't buy this for a second.
I believe that these "cheaters" are in fact alien lifeforms, who are covertly working to sabotage the fine research being done by the seti@home project. The project was coming close to discovering the location of their invasion force, so a crack team was sent to earth to disable the earth information gathering project, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of other earthlings.
those aliens weren't quite clever enough though, were they...
I can write an app that handles 1000hits/second on a single machine, but cannot scale to two machines. Or I can write a scalable app which handles 900hits/second on a single machine, but I can get 900 MORE hits/second by adding a second machine, and so on.
This is what I'm referring to when I say that there's often an initial performance drop with scalable software.
Anyway, here's something for you to try, stop being mad that I called you a fucking retard and insinuating that your ability to communicate effectively was on the same level as a shit-flinging monkey. Instead, ask yourself what changes you'd make in your optimization strategy if you're designing code for: a) a single-cpu machine, with no possibility that the code will ever be on multiple machines, or b) a large cluster, potentially with multiple types of machines.
Once you're done pondering that you'll realize that I am far smarter than you, not to mention better looking.
So performance is very important in situations where the size of the application user base needs to scale dependably.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that scalability and initial performance have nothing to do with each other. In fact, highly scalable solutions are often slower because they're designed with the understanding that 'perhaps there wil be a load balancer in front of this application someday, and I will not be able to handle session state in the simplest way'.
Originally I said web servers aren't expensive because most performance problems can be solved by throwing hardware at them, which tends to be an appropriate solution for web-based applications, thus the current popularity of the 'rack of 1U webservers, and a fast db box' configuration, or some similar variant.
P.S. If you want somebody to refrain from referring to you as a fucking retard, try to engage in a debate, instead of just flinging shit around like a retarded monkey.
Okay, since you insist on making applying all sorts of conditions to my example that obviously change the outcome, ummm... sure you're right. the point was that a 10% or even a 50% or 80% performance penalty isn't neccessarily a reason to abandon a solution, if that solution offers other benefits, such as increased maintainability, decreased development time, increased scalability or what not.
i look forward to reading yet another contrived reply which ignores every fucking thing i've said, and/or adds on all sorts of shit that i didn't say. you fucking retard.
Could you try responding to points that I actually made? The fact of the matter is that servers, even db servers, aren't expensive compared to developer time. I can buy a mid-range SunFire 4810 for about the same financial cost as one or two man-years (a couple hundred grand). So if that 20 man development team can cut 2 weeks off of the project, but it'll require a SunFire 4810 to run afterwards, that's a good deal for the bottom line.
I look forward to seeing what words you point into my mouth in your next response.
Web Servers tend not to be expensive machines. A decent software engineer is going to have a loaded cost of somewhere in the neighborhood of $150k/year, a good one will be more than that. If I can keep from hiring two of these people by buying $300,000 in hardware, I'm even money in year one, and saving $300k/year every year afterwards.
People on slashdot have some really, really odd ideas about what's expensive and what's not. Here's a clue: web servers are not expensive.
Those aren't great examples, but my point is that Playboy isn't particularly pornographic. College libraries stock Playboy microfilm for a reason, and it's not because it's pure porn.
There's also some evidence which indicates that the highest paid Americans are debating whether or not to buy sweden, so they can turn it into a Planet Hollywood.
The RISKS mailing list (aka comp.risks on usenet) deals with this topic quite thoroughly. Go forth and read this fine forum on risks to the public through computers and related systems. Learn about the problems faced by planes, trains, automobiles, banks, websites, electronic voting machines and more.
Death Race 2000 was also a computer game, long ago (pre 1990, I think). You'd drive around a track, laying mines, shooting guns and missiles at the other cars, in an attempt to win by killing everybody.
This whole violence thing has been around as long as games, movies, books and storytelling have existed, people who get excited about it need to eat a bag of dicks.
I've had to deal with amazon.com's customer service, and it's no problem. They don't have a phone number, but they answer emails quickly and helpfully.
sprint on the other hand is a really disappointing company... i'm getting rid of sprint, though for entirely different reasons.
Actually the correct version of that old tennessee saying, well I know it's in Texas it's probably in Tennessee is : 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you.... A foolmuh canby foolduh gain'. See?
Schonberg didn't always compose atonally. Schonberg started off composing in the romantic style, but then started experimenting with twelve-tone technique with pieces of Serenade and Piano Suite. While twelve-tone technique is what keeps Schonberg famous, the majority of his work doesn't use this method, or doesn't use it exclusively.
And just a side note, the music that uses this method does have quite a bit of structure in it, so it isn't like listening to random noise, rendered by a musician.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was that the powerbooks get good battery life even without flipping it down to reduced, when it comes to trolling I admit nothing... nothing!
instead of laughing in their face (so professional!), why not buy them a mac? iBooks and TiBooks both have good battery lives, and they don't throttle back the processor because of poor processor engineering.
My TiBook can watch just under 2 DVDs, full-screen, before the battery goes out. That's probably around 3 1/2 hours or so. Enjoy your "portable" computer, I'll enjoy my "mobile" laptop.
Also available, above system installed in a 1998 Mercedes SL500. asking price: $69,500.
So why would anybody support it? Until the costs of implementing ogg are damned near close to $0, nobody's going to spend the time and money implementing the code, integrating it all, testing it and supporting it.
of course you still need people to write the code to run on the boxes, people to test it, people to document it and people to monitor it. but if spending on money allows you to hire two fewer engineers (or lately, to not lay off two engineers), that's a good thing. after all, companies that don't make money go out of business, and then nobody has a job.
I believe that these "cheaters" are in fact alien lifeforms, who are covertly working to sabotage the fine research being done by the seti@home project. The project was coming close to discovering the location of their invasion force, so a crack team was sent to earth to disable the earth information gathering project, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of other earthlings.
those aliens weren't quite clever enough though, were they...
This is what I'm referring to when I say that there's often an initial performance drop with scalable software.
Anyway, here's something for you to try, stop being mad that I called you a fucking retard and insinuating that your ability to communicate effectively was on the same level as a shit-flinging monkey. Instead, ask yourself what changes you'd make in your optimization strategy if you're designing code for: a) a single-cpu machine, with no possibility that the code will ever be on multiple machines, or b) a large cluster, potentially with multiple types of machines.
Once you're done pondering that you'll realize that I am far smarter than you, not to mention better looking.
Originally I said web servers aren't expensive because most performance problems can be solved by throwing hardware at them, which tends to be an appropriate solution for web-based applications, thus the current popularity of the 'rack of 1U webservers, and a fast db box' configuration, or some similar variant.
P.S. If you want somebody to refrain from referring to you as a fucking retard, try to engage in a debate, instead of just flinging shit around like a retarded monkey.
i look forward to reading yet another contrived reply which ignores every fucking thing i've said, and/or adds on all sorts of shit that i didn't say. you fucking retard.
Pennsylvania has a similar website.
my priest did the same thing. you had to strip naked first, right?
I look forward to seeing what words you point into my mouth in your next response.
I hate to be the one to tell you this but Penn State isn't Ivy League.
People on slashdot have some really, really odd ideas about what's expensive and what's not. Here's a clue: web servers are not expensive.
Those aren't great examples, but my point is that Playboy isn't particularly pornographic. College libraries stock Playboy microfilm for a reason, and it's not because it's pure porn.
There's also some evidence which indicates that the highest paid Americans are debating whether or not to buy sweden, so they can turn it into a Planet Hollywood.
The RISKS mailing list (aka comp.risks on usenet) deals with this topic quite thoroughly. Go forth and read this fine forum on risks to the public through computers and related systems. Learn about the problems faced by planes, trains, automobiles, banks, websites, electronic voting machines and more.
This whole violence thing has been around as long as games, movies, books and storytelling have existed, people who get excited about it need to eat a bag of dicks.
sprint on the other hand is a really disappointing company... i'm getting rid of sprint, though for entirely different reasons.
Actually the correct version of that old tennessee saying, well I know it's in Texas it's probably in Tennessee is : 'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you.... A foolmuh canby foolduh gain'. See?
And just a side note, the music that uses this method does have quite a bit of structure in it, so it isn't like listening to random noise, rendered by a musician.