And then Labels A-D will talk to Legislator F, perhaps with a bribe of E dollars, and get him to sponsor Bill CBDTPA, which makes it impossible for Fan X to get his music on KaZaA for a short time. Legislator F will talk to his friends, Legislators G-X, and eventually, they'll have a majority.
Then, Labels A-D will reward Legislator F with Fruit Basket L, which contains N Apples.
How is changing the function of a single button to involve the use of a button and a modifier key "elegant" in any way, shape, or form? It requires two separate devices instead of one.
Optimizations are generally going to stem from one of two places: the compiler, or hand-tweaked assembly.
An application like Sendmail or Apache is not going to be doing the computational heavy lifting that necessitates hand-tweaking of assembly, so such optimizations aren't going to be worthwhile.
If such optimizations are stemming from the compiler, then Apple's gcc backend is inferior, and indeed deserves to lose.
a) The BLAST test was performed with a client specifically optimized for G4, and developed by Apple in conjunction with the original author. I doubt RedHat and Intel got that kind of collaboration.
b) The benchmarking was performed by Apple. And before people go flaming me, saying that Apple is trustworthy, they're just another company looking out for their bottom line. The fact that they released OS X, which cures cancer and freshens your breath while you're asleep (to hear some tell it), does not change the fact that they are in the business of selling software and hardware.
c) They don't specify which version of RedHat 7.2 was used, or any specific optimizations performed to either OS X or RedHat. Pessimistically, one can assume that OS X was overoptimized (perhaps built specially for the benchmark, stripping unnecessary bloat from the operating system), and that RedHat was underoptimized (out of the box, meaning that most of the software was optimized for i386-series processors, and the kernel was optimized for Pentium Pro, which has different timing minutiae from the P3.)
d) RedHat Linux is not a server platform; it is aimed squarely at the business workstation. Debian, Slackware, or Gentoo would have been more suited to the task.
Are you going decide which CPU to get next based on bit rotate performance?
On the PC, all of my work was so slow. That repeated multiplication and division by powers of two took forever. That's why I got a Mac, which has great shift left / shift right performance! Now I have more time to ogle the secretaries from the water cooler.
I'm Colin Bayer, and I'm an accountant at Arthur Andersen.
The difference is that you have to make an effort to understand what was changed and why if only the source is distributed. Thusly, the person providing the patch gets off scot-free, and you get busted for knowing how to read C.
Re:An aging gaming population...
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 1
one would think that you'd get some telefragging going on.
New content protected by DRM cannot be converted to non-DRM content without a key (barring a hack.) The stream of new content on those networks will dry up as DRM worms its way into all kinds of consumer electronics. However, old content will still be available on DRM boxen (right now, you can turn off Palladium in the BIOS.) If Mr. Sixpack perceives that the value of new content is enough, then you can be sure as hell that he'll be in the line at Circuit City. Once mainstream acceptance takes place, the FooAAs will push legislation mandating Palladium, and all the old content will disappear.
As long as people are running windows 98 on non-DRM hardware this will never fly past the drawing board. People will not upgrade thier computers to view content and if they are forced to that content will never catch on.
It depends on the magnitude and the quality of the content offered. The mythical Joe Sixpack just might go out and buy a new computer if he could watch every new feature film for the low, low price of $3 a viewing, or put together custom CDs for half the price of CDs he picks up in stores; that is, he might if he's a big enough consumer.
This whole process will happen over such a long period of time that it is completely consevable that it will take Apple just as much time to gain a signifigant percentage of market share then it would DRM enabled computer to catch on en mass.
To paraphrase, it's also completely conceivable that monkeys could fly out of my butt.
Apple computers are not yet at the "commodity" price point, whereas PCs are. Is Joe Sixpack going to go out and buy a $999 eMac/iMac when Gateway has a Profile 4 for $699? Is he going to bother learning Mac OS X, then get pissed off when none of his Windows apps work, or buy another Windows box and neatly get out of having to buy new software? (Remember, Joe Sixpack has heard of neither Linux nor BSD, and he has no clue what open-source software is.)
Where does that leave us? Media vendors will be selling content to too few people and end up folding purely due to the fact that there is not enough demand for the conent.
If a significant fraction of 95% of the consumer retail market switches to the Mac platform for no reason other than they look pretty (and lack this "DRM" thing that's going to get rid of hackers and terrorists.) If you can somehow convince that market that this "Palladium" thing is morally wrong, even though it allows them to watch TV on their computers.
This whole situation hinges on two things:
1) Palladium gets introduced as a major trend in computers.
2) Microsoft royally fucks something up.
3) Both 1) and 2) occur before Apple/IBM/Motorola/the Trilateral Commission succumb to market pressures and come up with a TCPA/Palladium-compliant DRM implementation.
If, and only if, these things happen, and people see that their Wintel boxen aren't running all the things they used to, will people switch to unencumbered platforms. Pray that they do.
If you don't think Apple will be up against the wall like everyone else, implementing some form of DRM, you're deluded. Once content begins to be released with DRM restrictions, Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things. The only technologies that could survive without DRM (assuming the CBDTPA doesn't pass) would be those that don't share a market with Windows, and they are very few indeed.
The port for UT2K3 to Mac is coming in December. And the engine's not any more OpenGLish, it's just that there's a different (and slower) codepath for the OpenGL renderer, as there was with UT.
In other countries, people become adults at different times (14 in Albania, 17 in Cyprus, 16 in Norway, full chart here). Forcing our view of morality on the rest of the world is something the US has been doing far too much lately.
Wrong. Moore's Law states that (barring physical laws), the number of transistors on a square unit of substrate will double every 6 months. The number of transistors does not necessarily have a linear correlation to clockspeed.
Wrong. Read "A Salmon of Doubt". The movie had been stalled in production (with his full support), but a few weeks before his death, he met with the executive producer and got the process unjammed.
If it's ok for the kid to steal software because he MIGHT someday be in a position to buy more, wouldn't it be ok for me to steal a server because I MIGHT someday be in a position to buy more?
No, because a server is a physical product. It can't be reproduced for free. If you took the server, it is indeed stealing. If you copy a software program, it's not, because additional copies of the program can be made for no charge. It is, however, still copyright infringement because the law says that you're not entitled to make a copy of it.
Does it make it okay if I find one sitting in the back of a Sun warehouse somewhere, a poor forgotten system ordered by a now-bankrupt dot com, so that I'm not depriving Sun of income they weren't going to get in the first place?
No, because the server's still saleable. Say you went down to the dot-com's abandoned offices and found this server in a dumpster. They were (obviously, since it's in a dumpster) not planning to sell the server or derive any income from it in that way, so it is legal to take it.
Re:Cool--They make a PPC Linux
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 1
"with AltiVec" is irrelevant, as most open-source software does not make much use of hand-coded assembly, and that which does (the Linux kernel itself) is generally too low-level for those optimizations to be made. (And remember, compilers won't usually drop in SIMD code themselves; that's why the icc MMX/SSE/SSE2 compiler intrinsics exist.) The "optimizations", in this case, are things like word alignment and instruction ordering, which must be done differently on each processor for optimum performance.
Wrong. Sure, the worm copies itself as C, but it roots your box by overflowing a buffer with shell code, which is processor-dependent. It'll cause other processors to go nonlinear or SIGILL your Apache process.
Slashdot Mirror
"In short: message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an excercise in computer science masturbation. It may feel good, but you don't actually get anything DONE." -- Linus Torvalds
And then Labels A-D will talk to Legislator F, perhaps with a bribe of E dollars, and get him to sponsor Bill CBDTPA, which makes it impossible for Fan X to get his music on KaZaA for a short time. Legislator F will talk to his friends, Legislators G-X, and eventually, they'll have a majority.
Then, Labels A-D will reward Legislator F with Fruit Basket L, which contains N Apples.
You just left college, and yet you can't convert currencies correctly. A hint: 95 pounds is closer to 140 dollars than 63.
First, Megahertz Myth aside...
You gotta deflate P4 mhz against P3's and Athlons, which don't do quite as much per clock as a G3.
Do your lickable buttons have lead paint?
How is changing the function of a single button to involve the use of a button and a modifier key "elegant" in any way, shape, or form? It requires two separate devices instead of one.
Err, platform-specific optimizations, that is.
Optimizations are generally going to stem from one of two places: the compiler, or hand-tweaked assembly.
An application like Sendmail or Apache is not going to be doing the computational heavy lifting that necessitates hand-tweaking of assembly, so such optimizations aren't going to be worthwhile.
If such optimizations are stemming from the compiler, then Apple's gcc backend is inferior, and indeed deserves to lose.
a) The BLAST test was performed with a client specifically optimized for G4, and developed by Apple in conjunction with the original author. I doubt RedHat and Intel got that kind of collaboration.
b) The benchmarking was performed by Apple. And before people go flaming me, saying that Apple is trustworthy, they're just another company looking out for their bottom line. The fact that they released OS X, which cures cancer and freshens your breath while you're asleep (to hear some tell it), does not change the fact that they are in the business of selling software and hardware.
c) They don't specify which version of RedHat 7.2 was used, or any specific optimizations performed to either OS X or RedHat. Pessimistically, one can assume that OS X was overoptimized (perhaps built specially for the benchmark, stripping unnecessary bloat from the operating system), and that RedHat was underoptimized (out of the box, meaning that most of the software was optimized for i386-series processors, and the kernel was optimized for Pentium Pro, which has different timing minutiae from the P3.)
d) RedHat Linux is not a server platform; it is aimed squarely at the business workstation. Debian, Slackware, or Gentoo would have been more suited to the task.
Are you going decide which CPU to get next based on bit rotate performance?
On the PC, all of my work was so slow. That repeated multiplication and division by powers of two took forever. That's why I got a Mac, which has great shift left / shift right performance! Now I have more time to ogle the secretaries from the water cooler.
I'm Colin Bayer, and I'm an accountant at Arthur Andersen.
The difference is that you have to make an effort to understand what was changed and why if only the source is distributed. Thusly, the person providing the patch gets off scot-free, and you get busted for knowing how to read C.
one would think that you'd get some telefragging going on.
You mean you've never had chicken pox? Wow, you're lucky. Those things itch like crazy.
Geez, I'm fairly sure it was sarcasm. Get a new detector. You're kinda ugly, but here goes... *lart*
Oh Yeah, that's right, I've had that function disabled since day one here.
(User #595286 Info)
And that was, what, Tuesday?
New content protected by DRM cannot be converted to non-DRM content without a key (barring a hack.) The stream of new content on those networks will dry up as DRM worms its way into all kinds of consumer electronics. However, old content will still be available on DRM boxen (right now, you can turn off Palladium in the BIOS.) If Mr. Sixpack perceives that the value of new content is enough, then you can be sure as hell that he'll be in the line at Circuit City. Once mainstream acceptance takes place, the FooAAs will push legislation mandating Palladium, and all the old content will disappear.
Ignore all internal inconsistencies in this post. I suck at going back and editing things already written. So, yeah.
(PS: damn you, 2 minute post timeout.)
As long as people are running windows 98 on non-DRM hardware this will never fly past the drawing board. People will not upgrade thier computers to view content and if they are forced to that content will never catch on.
It depends on the magnitude and the quality of the content offered. The mythical Joe Sixpack just might go out and buy a new computer if he could watch every new feature film for the low, low price of $3 a viewing, or put together custom CDs for half the price of CDs he picks up in stores; that is, he might if he's a big enough consumer.
This whole process will happen over such a long period of time that it is completely consevable that it will take Apple just as much time to gain a signifigant percentage of market share then it would DRM enabled computer to catch on en mass.
To paraphrase, it's also completely conceivable that monkeys could fly out of my butt.
Apple computers are not yet at the "commodity" price point, whereas PCs are. Is Joe Sixpack going to go out and buy a $999 eMac/iMac when Gateway has a Profile 4 for $699? Is he going to bother learning Mac OS X, then get pissed off when none of his Windows apps work, or buy another Windows box and neatly get out of having to buy new software? (Remember, Joe Sixpack has heard of neither Linux nor BSD, and he has no clue what open-source software is.)
Where does that leave us? Media vendors will be selling content to too few people and end up folding purely due to the fact that there is not enough demand for the conent.
If a significant fraction of 95% of the consumer retail market switches to the Mac platform for no reason other than they look pretty (and lack this "DRM" thing that's going to get rid of hackers and terrorists.) If you can somehow convince that market that this "Palladium" thing is morally wrong, even though it allows them to watch TV on their computers.
This whole situation hinges on two things:
1) Palladium gets introduced as a major trend in computers.
2) Microsoft royally fucks something up.
3) Both 1) and 2) occur before Apple/IBM/Motorola/the Trilateral Commission succumb to market pressures and come up with a TCPA/Palladium-compliant DRM implementation.
If, and only if, these things happen, and people see that their Wintel boxen aren't running all the things they used to, will people switch to unencumbered platforms. Pray that they do.
If you don't think Apple will be up against the wall like everyone else, implementing some form of DRM, you're deluded. Once content begins to be released with DRM restrictions, Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things. The only technologies that could survive without DRM (assuming the CBDTPA doesn't pass) would be those that don't share a market with Windows, and they are very few indeed.
The port for UT2K3 to Mac is coming in December. And the engine's not any more OpenGLish, it's just that there's a different (and slower) codepath for the OpenGL renderer, as there was with UT.
I don't think Kiddie Porn is protected anywhere.
In other countries, people become adults at different times (14 in Albania, 17 in Cyprus, 16 in Norway, full chart here). Forcing our view of morality on the rest of the world is something the US has been doing far too much lately.
Wrong. Moore's Law states that (barring physical laws), the number of transistors on a square unit of substrate will double every 6 months. The number of transistors does not necessarily have a linear correlation to clockspeed.
Wrong. Read "A Salmon of Doubt". The movie had been stalled in production (with his full support), but a few weeks before his death, he met with the executive producer and got the process unjammed.
If it's ok for the kid to steal software because he MIGHT someday be in a position to buy more, wouldn't it be ok for me to steal a server because I MIGHT someday be in a position to buy more?
No, because a server is a physical product. It can't be reproduced for free. If you took the server, it is indeed stealing. If you copy a software program, it's not, because additional copies of the program can be made for no charge. It is, however, still copyright infringement because the law says that you're not entitled to make a copy of it.
Does it make it okay if I find one sitting in the back of a Sun warehouse somewhere, a poor forgotten system ordered by a now-bankrupt dot com, so that I'm not depriving Sun of income they weren't going to get in the first place?
No, because the server's still saleable. Say you went down to the dot-com's abandoned offices and found this server in a dumpster. They were (obviously, since it's in a dumpster) not planning to sell the server or derive any income from it in that way, so it is legal to take it.
"with AltiVec" is irrelevant, as most open-source software does not make much use of hand-coded assembly, and that which does (the Linux kernel itself) is generally too low-level for those optimizations to be made. (And remember, compilers won't usually drop in SIMD code themselves; that's why the icc MMX/SSE/SSE2 compiler intrinsics exist.) The "optimizations", in this case, are things like word alignment and instruction ordering, which must be done differently on each processor for optimum performance.
Wrong. Sure, the worm copies itself as C, but it roots your box by overflowing a buffer with shell code, which is processor-dependent. It'll cause other processors to go nonlinear or SIGILL your Apache process.