And that is not correct either. The chip doesn't scale that way with clock speed.
A 3800+ AMD chip will perform, roughly, 3.8 times as well as a 1 GHz Athlon. This is not the true in all cases - it will perform better in some situations, worse in others.
Optimized architecture also means, that the 800 MHz Athlon 64 FX (underclocked by Cool'n'Quiet) could still outperform a 1 GHz Athlon, hence giving it a performance rating of more than 1000+.
While you've been moderated quite "informative", your comment isn't really that - it's partly right, just like it's partly right that the earth is somewhat flat;)
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 4, Informative
While they would never comment on it
Not sure where you got that idea. I haven't been paying much attention to yellowTAB, but from what I've heard, including here on Slashdot, they bought a licence to BeOS just before Be was sold off to whatever company it was.
As for their never commenting on it... I suppose it'd be too much trouble to actually check their website.
So... what you're suggesting is that people write webpages for IE, that don't crash is as such, but cause it to leak even more than usual, causing more and more people to be pissed off by it's horrible design?
Heh... hadn't noticed Google on the Application page.
Oh, a follow-up question, which might be a bit odd and snide.
What we'd love to do is drop a fully functional program on the unsuspecting public like a bomb... but that would mean secrecy is needed until it actually works (or if we're accepted as a stipend, until we're done working in the time period).
Would that even be possible? Not talking about taking it under something other than likely LGPL (makes the most sense for us), just a "hush hush" approach rather than bragging left and right about this great cool project, then having it fizzle.
And what happens if we're two people working on it rather than just one? Do we both apply? If it's accepted and works out, do we split the money?
You've even worked on it a bit during your comp.sci. classes, but it's not done, nor is it quite working.
Where would you submit something like that?
I ask because along with a friend, I have been working on what we believe to be a highly innovative application for a neural network, that - if we can get it working - you will definately love to have.
Problem is two-fold: 1) It's in the proof-of-concept stage, and our first attempt failed to even be a proof. We think this was due to crappy data to start with 2) It's not something that fits naturally into any of the mentioned organizations. The closest is Apache, but that's purely because they have a ton of Java-applications already.
The most "natural" organization for our idea, would probably be Google itself.
The aircraft seen crashing in the opening sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man was an M2-F2, a "flying body configuration" built by Northrup. The audio sound effects are from a crash that occurred on May 10, 1967, at Edwards Air Force base in California (although the dialogue heard was recorded by Lee Majors). The test pilot, Bruce Peterson, hit the ground at 250 mph, tumbling six times. He lost use of his right eye and had to stop flying, ending his career. Understandably, Peterson has said that he hated reliving his accident, week after week, courtesy of Steve Austin.
It doesn't say wether or not he walked away from the crash, but it does point to a more severe crash than "the pilot actually walked away from that one":)
Sure... and anti-spammer zealots always lie, you're an anti-spammer zealot, so you're also a habitual liar.
My point is that you lump someone into a nice little pigeonhole without knowing if he belongs in it. And since he's in that pigeonhole, you won't listen to him, as he's a liar and a spammer.
So why should we treat you differnt?
If I called you a paedofile, and people would ALWAYS lie about it if they were, you'd deny it, proving that you are, in fact, a paedofile. If you don't deny it, you're also a paedofile. So now we can just go and beat the shit out of you, as you don't desserve better.
As long as it doesn't become impossible to get one without it, I'm all for more players with a radio tuner. I know lots of people who'd want one.
Personally I don't want one, but I'd like a portable player.
Also, some of us live in countries where you have to pay a yearly fee if you have a radio and/or tv. I don't have either, and I'd like to avoid having to pay a yearly tax just to listen to my music...
The Applet wants to do something outside the sandbox. It can't. But maybe it should be allowed to, so the JVM asks the user if it should allow the applet to do so.
The user clicks yes, and hey presto - the applet can work outside the sandbox.
That's proper behavior - there are legitimate reasons an applet would want to go outside the sandbox, and so we have that option available to us - after the user has approved the action of course.
Slashdot Mirror
83,431 digits of Pi during a 13-hour overnight stretch. This more than doubles the previous record of 42,195
42,195 * 2 = 84,390. That's 959 digits short of just doubling.
Uhm ... or they destroy the harddrive themselves?
And that is not correct either. The chip doesn't scale that way with clock speed.
;)
A 3800+ AMD chip will perform, roughly, 3.8 times as well as a 1 GHz Athlon. This is not the true in all cases - it will perform better in some situations, worse in others.
Optimized architecture also means, that the 800 MHz Athlon 64 FX (underclocked by Cool'n'Quiet) could still outperform a 1 GHz Athlon, hence giving it a performance rating of more than 1000+.
While you've been moderated quite "informative", your comment isn't really that - it's partly right, just like it's partly right that the earth is somewhat flat
As for their never commenting on it
I ended up here: http://www.http.com//google.com.
Did you perhaps mean Internet Explorer instead of Windows?
Sure, but the enthropy is the killer here. The more you compress it, the more volatile it becomes.
...
... maybe that's what REALLY happend just prior to the big bang?
Compress it too much, and it might just explo
Wait
So ... what you're suggesting is that people write webpages for IE, that don't crash is as such, but cause it to leak even more than usual, causing more and more people to be pissed off by it's horrible design?
And a key ring.
That way when it gets stolen, the thief has everything he needs, and not just my money.
We've thought about that ... I think.
Anyway, my take is to make it an LGPL program. Makes the most sense if we're going Open Source and want it a bit more restrictive than BSD.
To my mind anyway.
*smiles*
... hadn't noticed Google on the Application page.
... but that would mean secrecy is needed until it actually works (or if we're accepted as a stipend, until we're done working in the time period).
:)
Heh
Oh, a follow-up question, which might be a bit odd and snide.
What we'd love to do is drop a fully functional program on the unsuspecting public like a bomb
Would that even be possible? Not talking about taking it under something other than likely LGPL (makes the most sense for us), just a "hush hush" approach rather than bragging left and right about this great cool project, then having it fizzle.
And what happens if we're two people working on it rather than just one? Do we both apply? If it's accepted and works out, do we split the money?
Well, more than one follow-up question actually
You've even worked on it a bit during your comp.sci. classes, but it's not done, nor is it quite working.
Where would you submit something like that?
I ask because along with a friend, I have been working on what we believe to be a highly innovative application for a neural network, that - if we can get it working - you will definately love to have.
Problem is two-fold:
1) It's in the proof-of-concept stage, and our first attempt failed to even be a proof. We think this was due to crappy data to start with
2) It's not something that fits naturally into any of the mentioned organizations. The closest is Apache, but that's purely because they have a ton of Java-applications already.
The most "natural" organization for our idea, would probably be Google itself.
So what should we do?
"I" before "E", except after c
:p
It's nice to see people weigh in on the important parts in society.
They'll follow you with rotating cameras outfitted with 1200mm zoom lenses.
... either I'm completely oblivious to the standard measurements of optic lenses, but isn't a camera with a 4 FOOT lense rather much overkill?
Uhm
Both, actually :)
First one
Second one
Third one
Sure ... and anti-spammer zealots always lie, you're an anti-spammer zealot, so you're also a habitual liar.
My point is that you lump someone into a nice little pigeonhole without knowing if he belongs in it. And since he's in that pigeonhole, you won't listen to him, as he's a liar and a spammer.
So why should we treat you differnt?
If I called you a paedofile, and people would ALWAYS lie about it if they were, you'd deny it, proving that you are, in fact, a paedofile. If you don't deny it, you're also a paedofile. So now we can just go and beat the shit out of you, as you don't desserve better.
Of course, since anti-spam-zealots always lie, why should I trust what YOU say?
Not a physicist, and I only have basic high school physics. So I'm obviously right ;)
Gravity is an acceleration on you. The reason you can lift off in a rocket, is that the acceleration you achieve is greater than what you're fighting.
you in a rocket
--->
------------------
A black hole
You simple don't have the energy needed to overcome the pull it's making.
As long as it doesn't become impossible to get one without it, I'm all for more players with a radio tuner. I know lots of people who'd want one.
...
Personally I don't want one, but I'd like a portable player.
Also, some of us live in countries where you have to pay a yearly fee if you have a radio and/or tv. I don't have either, and I'd like to avoid having to pay a yearly tax just to listen to my music
I certainly hope they didn't paddle his balls!
The GF bought [...] but the BF hesitates
... freudian slip? Or something far more interesting? :)
hrmm
That's why that security warning pops up.
The Applet wants to do something outside the sandbox. It can't. But maybe it should be allowed to, so the JVM asks the user if it should allow the applet to do so.
The user clicks yes, and hey presto - the applet can work outside the sandbox.
That's proper behavior - there are legitimate reasons an applet would want to go outside the sandbox, and so we have that option available to us - after the user has approved the action of course.