Apple's numbers are a valid comparison of the benchmarks *when compiled with GCC 3.3*. The numbers you saw were done with different compilers.
Should Apple compile the fp benchmarks using AltiVec optimizations? Of course not. Instead, they simply compared Apples with apples (pun intended) which is what one should do in benchmarking.
In the end, what really matters is: 1. Real world performance. The Photoshop tests suggest that these new machines will at least hold their own against the Wintel world for content creation, Apple's core market. 2. The user experience. This is a slam dunk for Apple - after all, they wouldn't be in business at all if not for their vastly superior user experience (that's what people who buy macs pay the premium price for). This is due largely to Apple's complete hardware-software integration - "It's not Windows, call the manufacturer," "It's not our box, call Microsoft."
When I get to the bottom I go back to the top *of the* slide.
Think about it - the next lines don't make sense if he's already slidden - "Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride, Till I get to the bottom and I see you again." And besides, the lyrics to all the songs were on the back of the poster that came with the album (vinyl).
For those who don't know, these are part of the lyrics from the Beatles' song, Helter Skelter (which, I've heard, was U.K. slang for a playground slide).
You're both missing the big picture. When the Bill of Rights was being crafted, many opposed the whole idea, not because they were against individual rights, but because they feared that what you two are discussing would happen: that people would come to believe that *only* those rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights were protected.
"A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated is presumed to be given[to the government]. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government, and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."
OK, most are ugly, but fvwm is the fug-ugliest
on
fvwm Turns Ten
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, you got me there, but still, just because many X11 WMs are poster children for bad taste and color blindness, doesn't mean fvwm should be kept on life support. Pull the plug already and let this brain damaged embarrassment to the *nix community die.
From the article: "IBM did not confirm it was building a chip specifically for Apple, but it does say its new PowerPC chip will work on Apple platforms."
So IBM has confirmed that the new chip will work in Apple Machines, something they heretofore had not said.
Because lisp, like all tools for highly skilled workers, takes time to master. People who have taken this time are fewer, and so, more expensive to hire.
Most companies will foolishly opt for 3 code monkeys (i.e., inexperienced, unproductive programmers) rather than one lisp master at 3 times the salary. This overlooks the fact that the lisp master is often 5 or 10 times more productive.
It's the same reason businesses choose cheap everything. Bean counters rarely look past initial cost.
To summarize, what you're missing in this picture is that management decisions such as implementation language are often made by managers, not master programmers who actually know about such things.
from P.G.'s article: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed."
Yeah, that bit is his subjective opinion, and not even a widely held one at that. It was, in fact, a belief widely held by 19th century academic artists - that the Old Masters had technical skills now forgotten, etc.
I think the history of art since then (Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Cubism, Modernism, Abstract Expressionism) shows that there were many, many more things to be discovered, all of which are more expressive than the naive realism of the Cinquecento.
Especially since the advent of photography, which provides far superior consensus "realism," to maintain that the paintings of the Cinquecento are unsurpassed is really just nostalgia. This nostalgia is typical among those who haven't painted long enough to see that such Cinquecento styles are both easy, once you learn the technical tricks, and boring, precisely because of their slavish imitation of reality. This nostalgic group includes painters who haven't been painting for 10 or more years, and art historians who, typically, haven't painted much at all.
The art styles of the late 19th through the mid 20th century are easily a match, and arguably superior creatively and expressively, to anything that Leonardo, Raphael, or Michelangelo painted.
That's Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, by the way. Oh, and Lautrec's paintings and posters are considered great art.
It was Picasso's lame and rather derivative works (imitation Lautrec for the most part) from his earliest days in Paris (ca. 1900) that are not.
It is only later, in what are now known as Picasso's Blue (ca. 1901-1903) and Rose (ca. 1904-1906) periods that Picasso began to develop his own original style. This trend culminated in his joint development of Cubism with George Braque in the latter half of the first decade of the 20th century. Picasso then rung numerous changes on these ideas for the rest of his rather long career.
There's a reason why one doesn't often see Picasso's early imitation Lautrec style paintings. They're unoriginal, and not representative of Picasso's later creative virtuosity.
With a laptop, Mbox (small enough to be quite portable), good mics, and ProTools LE, you have an affordable, portable, professional recording solution. Professional as in, pros use exactly this setup to do recording, editing, and mixing when on the road.
Buy an iBook, or G4 PowerBook, and the above Digidesign hardware and software. That's what real pros do.
Not to nitpick, but what you call the Bible, is nothing more than an early Catholic church approved version of certain hebrew and greek writings.
Other scripture, of equal authenticity exists (e.g., the Gospel According to Thomas) but was specifically excluded by the church because they didn't like what it says. These writings are the basis of gnostic chrsitianity (yes, gnosticism is a form of christianity).
Moreover, the books of the approved Bible often contradict one another, so "flat out contradiction" is no indication of scriptural authenticity.
An acronym is simply a word consisting of the initial letters of the words of some phrase.
An abbreviation is a shortening of a single word, not multiple words.
The two examples you give (LASER, SCUBA) were originally, printed in all caps, even though they were pronounced as single words right from the start.
Acronyms are often printed in all caps to make it clear that they are acronyms. Only many years of usage, and the consequent common knowledge that they are acronyms, results in their being printed in lower case.
Emusic sells mp3s encoded at 128 kb/s. Apple sells m4ps encoded at 128 kb/s. Yes, that's correct, m4p, for mpeg 4 protected.
There is no comparison. Really, please listen to a CD burned from one of Apple's AACs - it's indistinguishable from an AIFF CD for most listeners. CDs burned from 128 kb/s mp3s, on the other hand, sound muddy - I actually can't listen to them, they're so irritating.
128 kb/s mp3s are no match for 128kb/s AACs. The latter, which the Apple Music Store is selling, really are close to CD quality. They sound *better* than the 320 kb/s mp3s I often rip of classical music.
"Why should you buy something when people are willing to give you music for free?"
Because the people who are willing to give it to you for free don't own it.
The people who actually do own it, are *not* willing to give it to you for free.
"No ones selling it, or making money off of it, so hows it hurting anyone?"
Because by giving away something you don't own, you are simultaneously increasing the supply and reducing the demand for it, thus driving the sale price down to 0. The person who actually owns that music (remember them?) is being hurt because you are forcing the price of their life's work down to 0.
"What kinda idiot or liar is going to tell me they wont accept a free gift?"
Someone with the moral and/or legal education to know that if a "gift" is free because it was acquired illegally, then it is is also illegal to receive it.
I think the grandparent overestimated you. You don't need to get a job, you need to get some morals.
Dowloading illegal copies of things you don't own ought to make you feel like you're taking someone else's property (you are). If it doesn't, you're badly in need of some moral education.
Since most people acquire this before the age of 6, I'd say that you're at a much more arrested state of development than the "get a job" advice assumed.
Your analysis is fairly cogent up to the usual point where this argument falls apart. Specifically, when you engage in unauthorized duplication, you are not "making more of something," since the thing of value is the exclusive right to copy. When you violate this right, you are not "making more of something," you are making it less valuable.
Thus, when you state that "duplication of that album doesn't take the album from that person so that they can't use it anymore. The artist is still able to sell their work." You are wrong. If enough illegal copies exist, then the artist cannot sell his work anymore, because you have driven the market price down to $0.00 through illegal duplication.
Simply supply and demand applies here. By engaging in illegal duplication, you are increasing supply while simultaneously reducing demand for the legal, for pay copies, which is guaranteed to drive the price down toward 0.
This is a lame rationalization for the particular form of stealing known as copyright violation.
Does this mean it's OK to steal music from major labels, but not from independent artists who sell without a "Huge middle man?"
Every time you value some copyrighted work at $0.00, you are valuing the labor and creativity of the copyright holder similarly. No number of "shades of gray" is going to change that simple fact.
To value a thing, is to pay for it. There is no other consensus token of value in this society. If you value a thing pay for it. If you don't, then do without it. But don't spout high minded rationalizations for stealing things that you do value, but are too cheap to pay for.
Let's spell this out, shall we. Copy, right, and violation. You have violated someone else's exclusive right to copy that music. Since you don't have this right, and you've taken this right without permission, then you have stolen this right.
By your definition, when you do this, they no longer have it (they no longer have the exclusive right to copy their music if you make unauthorized copies) so you *have* taken something, which they no longer have. So yes, YOU ARE STEALING!
Stealing a ham sandwich is different from stealing a car, which is, in turn different from copyright violation. But they are all stealing.
Quartz Extreme does compositing of windows using OpenGL by treating each window's contents as a texture.
Remember, Mac OS X Quartz windows all have transparancy, depending on their layer, so the alpha blending and compositing that comes with OpenGL does reduce CPU load significantly, especially when using transparent windows, with rapidly changing content which overlap.
How about... Science is all in the eye of the beholder Engineering is all in the eye of the beholder
No? Good, now you're catching on. In fact, any discipline is *not* merely in the eye of the beholder, but a consensus defined by the community of competent practitioners.
If a consensus of scientists think that one person is a crackpot, then, guess what, he's a crackpot.
If a consensus of artists, and people knowlegeable about art, think that something is not art, then it is not art. And, no, not just the judgement of anyone, just as we don't decide whether something is bogus science based on the opinion of unqualified lay people.
Art may be a broadly defined word, but to allow anything into the category makes the word meaningless - indistinguishable from the word "thing." If everything is art, then the word art means "thing," and nothing more.
Any decent definition of art includes two elements: vision, and mastery. A work of art must express an underlying vision (whether that be visual, musical, poetic, sculptural, etc.), and it must demonstrate a mastery of process and materials in doing so.
" So imagine a Photoshop.app that has both PPC and 970 and 64bit and x86 code inside of it."
Unfortunately, Adobe would have to do more than just imagine it - they'd have to rewrite platform specific portions, recompile, test, and debug it.
Unless they've already done this, along with MS (for Office), and a dozen other major application vendors for their Mac products, why would anyone buy a high end workstation Mac, that can't run *any* of their existing software?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's numbers are a valid comparison of the benchmarks *when compiled with GCC 3.3*. The numbers you saw were done with different compilers.
Should Apple compile the fp benchmarks using AltiVec optimizations? Of course not. Instead, they simply compared Apples with apples (pun intended) which is what one should do in benchmarking.
In the end, what really matters is:
1. Real world performance. The Photoshop tests suggest that these new machines will at least hold their own against the Wintel world for content creation, Apple's core market.
2. The user experience. This is a slam dunk for Apple - after all, they wouldn't be in business at all if not for their vastly superior user experience (that's what people who buy macs pay the premium price for). This is due largely to Apple's complete hardware-software integration - "It's not Windows, call the manufacturer," "It's not our box, call Microsoft."
When I get to the bottom I go back to the top *of the* slide.
Think about it - the next lines don't make sense if he's already slidden - "Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride, Till I get to the bottom and I see you again." And besides, the lyrics to all the songs were on the back of the poster that came with the album (vinyl).
For those who don't know, these are part of the lyrics from the Beatles' song, Helter Skelter (which, I've heard, was U.K. slang for a playground slide).
You're both missing the big picture. When the Bill of Rights was being crafted, many opposed the whole idea, not because they were against individual rights, but because they feared that what you two are discussing would happen: that people would come to believe that *only* those rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights were protected.
From: James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 28 Nov. - 4 Dec. 1787
"A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated is presumed to be given[to the government]. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government, and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."
Well, you got me there, but still, just because many X11 WMs are poster children for bad taste and color blindness, doesn't mean fvwm should be kept on life support. Pull the plug already and let this brain damaged embarrassment to the *nix community die.
From the article:
"IBM did not confirm it was building a chip specifically for Apple, but it does say its new PowerPC chip will work on Apple platforms."
So IBM has confirmed that the new chip will work in Apple Machines, something they heretofore had not said.
Because lisp, like all tools for highly skilled workers, takes time to master. People who have taken this time are fewer, and so, more expensive to hire.
Most companies will foolishly opt for 3 code monkeys (i.e., inexperienced, unproductive programmers) rather than one lisp master at 3 times the salary. This overlooks the fact that the lisp master is often 5 or 10 times more productive.
It's the same reason businesses choose cheap everything. Bean counters rarely look past initial cost.
Paul Graham's success with viaweb (now Yahoo Store), and ITA Software's success with Orbitz suggests that the increased productivity of a handful of lisp hackers can easily beat whole cube farms of code monkeys when time to market counts, which is, essentially, always.
To summarize, what you're missing in this picture is that management decisions such as implementation language are often made by managers, not master programmers who actually know about such things.
Have you looked at CMUCL (Carnegie Mellon University Common Lisp)? I believe it has what you want.
A quick look at Paul Graham's site will show that he clearly believes the answer is lisp.
from P.G.'s article: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed."
Yeah, that bit is his subjective opinion, and not even a widely held one at that. It was, in fact, a belief widely held by 19th century academic artists - that the Old Masters had technical skills now forgotten, etc.
I think the history of art since then (Impressionism, Post Impressionism, Cubism, Modernism, Abstract Expressionism) shows that there were many, many more things to be discovered, all of which are more expressive than the naive realism of the Cinquecento.
Especially since the advent of photography, which provides far superior consensus "realism," to maintain that the paintings of the Cinquecento are unsurpassed is really just nostalgia. This nostalgia is typical among those who haven't painted long enough to see that such Cinquecento styles are both easy, once you learn the technical tricks, and boring, precisely because of their slavish imitation of reality. This nostalgic group includes painters who haven't been painting for 10 or more years, and art historians who, typically, haven't painted much at all.
The art styles of the late 19th through the mid 20th century are easily a match, and arguably superior creatively and expressively, to anything that Leonardo, Raphael, or Michelangelo painted.
"...Tolouse La Trek..."
Wasn't he Captain Kirk's favorite artist?
That's Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, by the way. Oh, and Lautrec's paintings and posters are considered great art.
It was Picasso's lame and rather derivative works (imitation Lautrec for the most part) from his earliest days in Paris (ca. 1900) that are not.
It is only later, in what are now known as Picasso's Blue (ca. 1901-1903) and Rose (ca. 1904-1906) periods that Picasso began to develop his own original style. This trend culminated in his joint development of Cubism with George Braque in the latter half of the first decade of the 20th century. Picasso then rung numerous changes on these ideas for the rest of his rather long career.
There's a reason why one doesn't often see Picasso's early imitation Lautrec style paintings. They're unoriginal, and not representative of Picasso's later creative virtuosity.
With a laptop, Mbox (small enough to be quite portable), good mics, and ProTools LE, you have an affordable, portable, professional recording solution. Professional as in, pros use exactly this setup to do recording, editing, and mixing when on the road.
Buy an iBook, or G4 PowerBook, and the above Digidesign hardware and software. That's what real pros do.
See Digidesign's website .
Not to nitpick, but what you call the Bible, is nothing more than an early Catholic church approved version of certain hebrew and greek writings.
Other scripture, of equal authenticity exists (e.g., the Gospel According to Thomas) but was specifically excluded by the church because they didn't like what it says. These writings are the basis of gnostic chrsitianity (yes, gnosticism is a form of christianity).
Moreover, the books of the approved Bible often contradict one another, so "flat out contradiction" is no indication of scriptural authenticity.
An acronym is simply a word consisting of the initial letters of the words of some phrase.
An abbreviation is a shortening of a single word, not multiple words.
The two examples you give (LASER, SCUBA) were originally, printed in all caps, even though they were pronounced as single words right from the start.
Acronyms are often printed in all caps to make it clear that they are acronyms. Only many years of usage, and the consequent common knowledge that they are acronyms, results in their being printed in lower case.
Emusic sells mp3s encoded at 128 kb/s. Apple sells m4ps encoded at 128 kb/s. Yes, that's correct, m4p, for mpeg 4 protected.
There is no comparison. Really, please listen to a CD burned from one of Apple's AACs - it's indistinguishable from an AIFF CD for most listeners. CDs burned from 128 kb/s mp3s, on the other hand, sound muddy - I actually can't listen to them, they're so irritating.
128 kb/s mp3s are no match for 128kb/s AACs.
The latter, which the Apple Music Store is selling, really are close to CD quality. They sound *better* than the 320 kb/s mp3s I often rip of classical music.
If you offered me 1 million dollars that you stole, no, I wouldn't accept it. I'd have your immoral ass thrown in jail where it belongs.
"Why should you buy something when people are willing to give you music for free?"
Because the people who are willing to give it to you for free don't own it.
The people who actually do own it, are *not* willing to give it to you for free.
"No ones selling it, or making money off of it, so hows it hurting anyone?"
Because by giving away something you don't own, you are simultaneously increasing the supply and reducing the demand for it, thus driving the sale price down to 0. The person who actually owns that music (remember them?) is being hurt because you are forcing the price of their life's work down to 0.
"What kinda idiot or liar is going to tell me they wont accept a free gift?"
Someone with the moral and/or legal education to know that if a "gift" is free because it was acquired illegally, then it is is also illegal to receive it.
I think the grandparent overestimated you. You don't need to get a job, you need to get some morals.
Dowloading illegal copies of things you don't own ought to make you feel like you're taking someone else's property (you are). If it doesn't, you're badly in need of some moral education.
Since most people acquire this before the age of 6, I'd say that you're at a much more arrested state of development than the "get a job" advice assumed.
Your analysis is fairly cogent up to the usual point where this argument falls apart. Specifically, when you engage in unauthorized duplication, you are not "making more of something," since the thing of value is the exclusive right to copy. When you violate this right, you are not "making more of something," you are making it less valuable.
Thus, when you state that "duplication of that album doesn't take the album from that person so that they can't use it anymore. The artist is still able to sell their work." You are wrong. If enough illegal copies exist, then the artist cannot sell his work anymore, because you have driven the market price down to $0.00 through illegal duplication.
Simply supply and demand applies here. By engaging in illegal duplication, you are increasing supply while simultaneously reducing demand for the legal, for pay copies, which is guaranteed to drive the price down toward 0.
This is a lame rationalization for the particular form of stealing known as copyright violation.
Does this mean it's OK to steal music from major labels, but not from independent artists who sell without a "Huge middle man?"
Every time you value some copyrighted work at $0.00, you are valuing the labor and creativity of the copyright holder similarly. No number of "shades of gray" is going to change that simple fact.
To value a thing, is to pay for it. There is no other consensus token of value in this society. If you value a thing pay for it. If you don't, then do without it. But don't spout high minded rationalizations for stealing things that you do value, but are too cheap to pay for.
Let's spell this out, shall we. Copy, right, and violation. You have violated someone else's exclusive right to copy that music. Since you don't have this right, and you've taken this right without permission, then you have stolen this right.
By your definition, when you do this, they no longer have it (they no longer have the exclusive right to copy their music if you make unauthorized copies) so you *have* taken something, which they no longer have. So yes, YOU ARE STEALING!
Stealing a ham sandwich is different from stealing a car, which is, in turn different from copyright violation. But they are all stealing.
Quartz Extreme does compositing of windows using OpenGL by treating each window's contents as a texture.
Remember, Mac OS X Quartz windows all have transparancy, depending on their layer, so the alpha blending and compositing that comes with OpenGL does reduce CPU load significantly, especially when using transparent windows, with rapidly changing content which overlap.
"Art is all in the eye of the beholder."
How about...
Science is all in the eye of the beholder
Engineering is all in the eye of the beholder
No? Good, now you're catching on. In fact, any discipline is *not* merely in the eye of the beholder, but a consensus defined by the community of competent practitioners.
If a consensus of scientists think that one person is a crackpot, then, guess what, he's a crackpot.
If a consensus of artists, and people knowlegeable about art, think that something is not art, then it is not art. And, no, not just the judgement of anyone, just as we don't decide whether something is bogus science based on the opinion of unqualified lay people.
Art may be a broadly defined word, but to allow anything into the category makes the word meaningless - indistinguishable from the word "thing." If everything is art, then the word art means "thing," and nothing more.
Any decent definition of art includes two elements: vision, and mastery. A work of art must express an underlying vision (whether that be visual, musical, poetic, sculptural, etc.), and it must demonstrate a mastery of process and materials in doing so.
" So imagine a Photoshop.app that has both PPC and 970 and 64bit and x86 code inside of it."
Unfortunately, Adobe would have to do more than just imagine it - they'd have to rewrite platform specific portions, recompile, test, and debug it.
Unless they've already done this, along with MS (for Office), and a dozen other major application vendors for their Mac products, why would anyone buy a high end workstation Mac, that can't run *any* of their existing software?