Oh come on. Do a little research and find out which prominent French author is on trial right now for "inciting religious hatred" for writing a book in which a character doesn't like Muslims. What's next after this?
See thats why I also included the UN, becuase I knew some Euro would say something along these lines (ie, "stupid americans")... what about your beloved infallible UN? The UN lists other areas such as American Samoa, Macao, and the Gaza strip. Why no Scotland?
Re:Wales? c'mon.
on
Wireless Wales
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Close... Actually, England and Scotland are seperate countries.
Re:Why is the U.S. so far behind.....
on
Wireless Wales
·
· Score: 2
Is the US really far behind? Do you have any links or data that compare prices and availability, as well as numbers of users of DSL, Cable, Wireless, ISDN, any other broadband connections in Europe and in the US?
Do you have any evidence of this? I'm quite sure I have OFFICE autoloading nothing at windows boot, and I'm not sure how or why XP would boot office intrinsically, since they are two different products and not always installed together.
XP and office aren't related. They are two separate products. I had to install office onto XP. If you have any evidence that this isn't true beyond paranoid anti-MS ranting, I'd like to see it.
This isn't a good point. I have office not pre-loading at all--I manually checked all running processes in task manager (winxp, Ctrl+alt+delete screen). No office things. I start MS words. Up and running in 3 seconds. End of story. AbiWord is even faster.
What, you really think nobody likes mcdonalds? I for one happen to think mcdonalds is good. the food may be crappy for you, but it's tasty. The fact is, just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean that other people also don't.
The duh implies "this should be common sense".
(note, you'll get no argument from me that the Beatles and N'sync aren't on the same level--I repeat that doesn't mean people don't like N'sync though)
I say again (quote) "Also, please reread the last sentence of my second paragraph, a point which you clearly missed" and clearly missed again.
Secondly, examine those names in your list--most are two syllable. And mant of them are actually pre-existing words. None of them have spaces (coke has a dash). I never said a name had to represent what they are either.
What makes me a detractor? I comment soley on the name (I made no mention of the obvious technical merit [well, maybe not so obvious when compared to next generation codecs]) which I think is lame and a bad thing for the projects success.
Think about the word kleenex--think of the first phoneme. Also, please reread the last sentence of my second paragraph, a point which you clearly missed.
Wow, do you have some personal stake in the name? I didn't mean to upset you so much, bottomline is unless you designed the name and have emotions caught up in it, this shouldn't be a debate that brings out such harsh emotions.. Let's take it calmly.
My point is simple and you didn't address it. MP3 -- letter M, letter P, number 3. em-pee-3. Instantly recognizble. Ogg Vorbis. What the hell is that? Ogg well that's not a word..Vorbis? That's not a word either. It's just a string of nonsense syllables. Sure, plenty of names are, but this one isn't particularly snappy (to my ear, or my friends at least, sorry if you disagree) and isn't even typical of english phoneme arrangment.
Incidentally, mp3 is so much easier to type that ogg vorbis--3 characters versus two words with a space.
The person who wrote in raises a good point--the name hurts Ogg. MP3 is a good name--it's simple (short), easy to say, easy to type, and catchy. Ogg Vorbis is none of those. I'd personally like to see a new name for Ogg.
Hmm I dunno. I'd be glad to see him go up (assuming of course he could pay)--opening up space to tourism and capitalism can only help in the long run. All the space programs could definitely use the money, and I'd rather it be other's money before mine:)
Off the top of my head, you're right on those. Fortunately, I said "pretty much" and those are a tiny minority of the significant technologies involved in the machine.
This statement shows a lack of understanding computer internals. Basically, other than the cpu and BIOS, Macs and PC's are basically indistinguishable today. The chip is of course a MAJOR part of the computer, but if we're talking peripheral "component" tech, then your statements are absolutely not true.
You then go on to say that:
My issue was with the statement that implied direct comparability between clock speeds on different processor models. Such is charlatanry.
And for recollections sake, here is my quote to which you replied:
And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
How could you POSSIBLY think I was saying to compare each MHz processors?? For one I was talking P4's which don't even have 1GHz models (AFAIK), so such a comparison would be impossible.
There's no doubt that Mhz-for-Mhz the G4 can outperform the P4 at some things (note the SOME things). But when the best g4 you can compare is 1GHz, and the best P4 2.8GHz, it's not going to be a close call. Such is reality, as unfortunate as it is.
I don't know what to say. We could sit here and trade anecdotal evidence back and forth, but this type of discussion clearly has no conclusion. Safe to say that this discussion should go no further I think.
Aside from IDE, pretty much every technology found in both Macs and Wintels was first implemented in Macs.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, but I believe the PCI bus was first used in PC's, SDRAM, DDR RAM, you mentioned IDE, AGP, Nvidia and ATI cards used in said buses, etc. (Not saying these were all invented on x86, just that they came to the x86 platform before they came to mac).
I'm not generally in favor of the government regulating speech, but moronic statements like that have become so commonplace that I'm actually in support of the FTC's recent hints at forcing computer vendors to use comparable numbers when reporting speed.
Yes, yes, we all know about the Megahertz myth, and yes I've taken several architecture classes so I think I have an inkling of what I'm talking about. Show me ANY benchmark ANYWHERE that shows a 1GHz G4 beating a say, 2.5GHz P4. I'm afraid even your altivec benchmarks don't even give that great an edge any more since the addition of SSE2. Please do back up your statements.
The point is further irrelevant seeing as the ACPI standards are around which allow for extensive IRQ sharing etc. IRQ's haven't really been a problem since the days of ISA, and the early days of PnP ISA.
Why is this insightful? "x86 components have proven that they don't 'just work'" . WTF, this has NO validity behind it. Look inside your mac, almost all the components you'll see were brought from x86 or other systems with the CPU being the obvious exception. And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
Your post is ridiculous, and a mockery of logic. I'm not forbidding anyone from doing anything--nor can I, nor should (check it--do I ever COMMAND, DEMAND, FORCE, etc anywherE? no, I suggest, I say "maybe"). I'm simply pointing out a better thing to do. Slashdot is a site with a lot of smart people, and there are a lot of smart things to do with your time. I was recommending one of them. It seems that you're so scared of differing opinions that you have to make a mockery of my post though rife with errors to try and mock my suggestion.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but whatever happened to the ancient art of reading? Humans have occupied themselves for thousands of years without having to get their "gaming fix." Instead of worrying about satisfying your sons raving video game addiction that apparently can't go a single day without gaming, maybe you should buy him some good books.
I'm sorry, but your post is not really true. For one, it's NOT just software licenses that Microsoft gives. I told you for one about thE MS room at my school, not to mention they are building an entire new building now named after Gates' wife (Duke University--check me out if you don't believe it). This is not built with software licenses.
Secondly, your assertion that MS doesn't give much to charity is also incorrect. As near as I could find MS gave almost 37 million dollars in 2001. This doesn't even count the salaries of the people employed by its charitable foundations. They donated 180 million worth of software--which again is hardly inconsiderable. How much of a sacrifice it is, is a ridiculous classist argument--MS's 37 million hard cash can do more good than a life time of Joe's $20.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. Do a little research and find out which prominent French author is on trial right now for "inciting religious hatred" for writing a book in which a character doesn't like Muslims. What's next after this?
The UN lists other areas such as American Samoa, Macao, and the Gaza strip. Why no Scotland? I really am curious what the difference is?
See thats why I also included the UN, becuase I knew some Euro would say something along these lines (ie, "stupid americans") ... what about your beloved infallible UN? The UN lists other areas such as American Samoa, Macao, and the Gaza strip. Why no Scotland?
Close... Actually, England and Scotland are seperate countries.
Odd...Neither the CIA Country Factbook nor the UN Stat. Division lists Scotland as a country.
Is the US really far behind? Do you have any links or data that compare prices and availability, as well as numbers of users of DSL, Cable, Wireless, ISDN, any other broadband connections in Europe and in the US?
Do you have any evidence of this? I'm quite sure I have OFFICE autoloading nothing at windows boot, and I'm not sure how or why XP would boot office intrinsically, since they are two different products and not always installed together.
XP and office aren't related. They are two separate products. I had to install office onto XP. If you have any evidence that this isn't true beyond paranoid anti-MS ranting, I'd like to see it.
This isn't a good point. I have office not pre-loading at all--I manually checked all running processes in task manager (winxp, Ctrl+alt+delete screen). No office things. I start MS words. Up and running in 3 seconds. End of story. AbiWord is even faster.
What, you really think nobody likes mcdonalds? I for one happen to think mcdonalds is good. the food may be crappy for you, but it's tasty. The fact is, just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean that other people also don't.
The duh implies "this should be common sense".
(note, you'll get no argument from me that the Beatles and N'sync aren't on the same level--I repeat that doesn't mean people don't like N'sync though)
You seem to be confusing "me" with "most people"
If people didn't like this stuff, it wouldn't sell, duh
What's an example of a company that is prevented from porting an app to linux by Microsoft?
Wow, what a pedantic response. I really appreciate you using a line-item understanding on what I say.
I say again (quote) "Also, please reread the last sentence of my second paragraph, a point which you clearly missed" and clearly missed again.
Secondly, examine those names in your list--most are two syllable. And mant of them are actually pre-existing words. None of them have spaces (coke has a dash). I never said a name had to represent what they are either.
What makes me a detractor? I comment soley on the name (I made no mention of the obvious technical merit [well, maybe not so obvious when compared to next generation codecs]) which I think is lame and a bad thing for the projects success.
Think about the word kleenex--think of the first phoneme. Also, please reread the last sentence of my second paragraph, a point which you clearly missed.
Wow, do you have some personal stake in the name? I didn't mean to upset you so much, bottomline is unless you designed the name and have emotions caught up in it, this shouldn't be a debate that brings out such harsh emotions.. Let's take it calmly.
My point is simple and you didn't address it. MP3 -- letter M, letter P, number 3. em-pee-3. Instantly recognizble. Ogg Vorbis. What the hell is that? Ogg well that's not a word..Vorbis? That's not a word either. It's just a string of nonsense syllables. Sure, plenty of names are, but this one isn't particularly snappy (to my ear, or my friends at least, sorry if you disagree) and isn't even typical of english phoneme arrangment.
Incidentally, mp3 is so much easier to type that ogg vorbis--3 characters versus two words with a space.
The person who wrote in raises a good point--the name hurts Ogg. MP3 is a good name--it's simple (short), easy to say, easy to type, and catchy. Ogg Vorbis is none of those. I'd personally like to see a new name for Ogg.
Hmm I dunno. I'd be glad to see him go up (assuming of course he could pay)--opening up space to tourism and capitalism can only help in the long run. All the space programs could definitely use the money, and I'd rather it be other's money before mine :)
Off the top of my head, you're right on those. Fortunately, I said "pretty much" and those are a tiny minority of the significant technologies involved in the machine.
This statement shows a lack of understanding computer internals. Basically, other than the cpu and BIOS, Macs and PC's are basically indistinguishable today. The chip is of course a MAJOR part of the computer, but if we're talking peripheral "component" tech, then your statements are absolutely not true.
You then go on to say that:
My issue was with the statement that implied direct comparability between clock speeds on different processor models. Such is charlatanry.
And for recollections sake, here is my quote to which you replied:
And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
How could you POSSIBLY think I was saying to compare each MHz processors?? For one I was talking P4's which don't even have 1GHz models (AFAIK), so such a comparison would be impossible.
There's no doubt that Mhz-for-Mhz the G4 can outperform the P4 at some things (note the SOME things). But when the best g4 you can compare is 1GHz, and the best P4 2.8GHz, it's not going to be a close call. Such is reality, as unfortunate as it is.
I don't know what to say. We could sit here and trade anecdotal evidence back and forth, but this type of discussion clearly has no conclusion. Safe to say that this discussion should go no further I think.
Aside from IDE, pretty much every technology found in both Macs and Wintels was first implemented in Macs.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, but I believe the PCI bus was first used in PC's, SDRAM, DDR RAM, you mentioned IDE, AGP, Nvidia and ATI cards used in said buses, etc. (Not saying these were all invented on x86, just that they came to the x86 platform before they came to mac).
I'm not generally in favor of the government regulating speech, but moronic statements like that have become so commonplace that I'm actually in support of the FTC's recent hints at forcing computer vendors to use comparable numbers when reporting speed.
Yes, yes, we all know about the Megahertz myth, and yes I've taken several architecture classes so I think I have an inkling of what I'm talking about. Show me ANY benchmark ANYWHERE that shows a 1GHz G4 beating a say, 2.5GHz P4. I'm afraid even your altivec benchmarks don't even give that great an edge any more since the addition of SSE2. Please do back up your statements.
The point is further irrelevant seeing as the ACPI standards are around which allow for extensive IRQ sharing etc. IRQ's haven't really been a problem since the days of ISA, and the early days of PnP ISA.
Why is this insightful? "x86 components have proven that they don't 'just work'" . WTF, this has NO validity behind it. Look inside your mac, almost all the components you'll see were brought from x86 or other systems with the CPU being the obvious exception. And hell, with the massive speed gap you have between the highend G4's (what, 1GHz top?) and high-end P4's (what, 2.8GHz now?) the x86 platform is clearly superior in terms of speed.
Your post is ridiculous, and a mockery of logic. I'm not forbidding anyone from doing anything--nor can I, nor should (check it--do I ever COMMAND, DEMAND, FORCE, etc anywherE? no, I suggest, I say "maybe"). I'm simply pointing out a better thing to do. Slashdot is a site with a lot of smart people, and there are a lot of smart things to do with your time. I was recommending one of them. It seems that you're so scared of differing opinions that you have to make a mockery of my post though rife with errors to try and mock my suggestion.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but whatever happened to the ancient art of reading? Humans have occupied themselves for thousands of years without having to get their "gaming fix." Instead of worrying about satisfying your sons raving video game addiction that apparently can't go a single day without gaming, maybe you should buy him some good books.
I'm sorry, but your post is not really true. For one, it's NOT just software licenses that Microsoft gives. I told you for one about thE MS room at my school, not to mention they are building an entire new building now named after Gates' wife (Duke University--check me out if you don't believe it). This is not built with software licenses.
Secondly, your assertion that MS doesn't give much to charity is also incorrect. As near as I could find MS gave almost 37 million dollars in 2001. This doesn't even count the salaries of the people employed by its charitable foundations. They donated 180 million worth of software--which again is hardly inconsiderable. How much of a sacrifice it is, is a ridiculous classist argument--MS's 37 million hard cash can do more good than a life time of Joe's $20.