But the PRAM model only requires that the parallel memory accesses occur at constant time - that constant could still be huge and it would run PRAM programs.
If they have got those times down to something useful that is clearly a step forward, but why then are they claiming superlinear speedup (64 CPUs performing as 100) and "desktop applications"?
A handful of phrases from the article give this away:
"...Rolling Stones [...] have a new album out.." "... today's bands are crap." "... plug iPod into a couple of speakers." "... four filler tracks on every album"
All the article really points out is that Apple (in the form of iPods and particularly iTMS) are particularly adept at selling music to those people who don't like music very much. This is a standard way of doing business, the best way to make money is by tapping into the huge market of people who don't really give a shit for your product. We have films for people who hate films, food for those who don't enjoy eating, and books aimed at the wilfully illiterate.
There is nothing wrong with this in itself; we all have our little areas of snobbery. The point at which it really begins to grate is when a journalist - who clearly has little interest in either music or technology - is given a voice to discuss his views on the current state of the intersection of those topics. Why should anyone care? He clearly doesn't - he has owned an iPod for nearly five months and has no insight into why the interface is popular or what its shortcomings are. Furthermore he completely misses the point that iTMS is as hamstrung by the slow moving record companies as his local HMV. That's why he can't get his LaVern Baker track.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally all (zero) of my webOS devices can work together in harmony.
I defy anyone of sound mind to read the set up to this play and *not* guess the surprise ending.
What the hell is Alexa?
Even it's website is a little shy on answering that question.
(Or have I just made Taco's point?)
But the PRAM model only requires that the parallel memory accesses occur at constant time - that constant could still be huge and it would run PRAM programs.
If they have got those times down to something useful that is clearly a step forward, but why then are they claiming superlinear speedup (64 CPUs performing as 100) and "desktop applications"?
No title. Less slick than Kuro5hin. Lame.
A handful of phrases from the article give this away:
"...Rolling Stones [...] have a new album out.."
"... today's bands are crap."
"... plug iPod into a couple of speakers."
"... four filler tracks on every album"
All the article really points out is that Apple (in the form of iPods and particularly iTMS) are particularly adept at selling music to those people who don't like music very much. This is a standard way of doing business, the best way to make money is by tapping into the huge market of people who don't really give a shit for your product. We have films for people who hate films, food for those who don't enjoy eating, and books aimed at the wilfully illiterate.
There is nothing wrong with this in itself; we all have our little areas of snobbery. The point at which it really begins to grate is when a journalist - who clearly has little interest in either music or technology - is given a voice to discuss his views on the current state of the intersection of those topics. Why should anyone care? He clearly doesn't - he has owned an iPod for nearly five months and has no insight into why the interface is popular or what its shortcomings are. Furthermore he completely misses the point that iTMS is as hamstrung by the slow moving record companies as his local HMV. That's why he can't get his LaVern Baker track.
I think you could perhaps attribute his attitude more to the fact that he is a Cambridge academic and less to the fact that he is in a wheelchair.
Reminds me of the bit in "Dead Poets Society" where poetry is marked on a two dimensional axis: Perfection versus Importance.
Rip out this page of the book, I say. In fact no, rip out this whole book.