as long as AMD can keep there MHz up with intel, it should be an intresting year or so.:) woo hoo! Anything to present more choice in America. I'm all for some non-intel chips to come along and kick some butt.. that's what makes the world a better place. ;)
AFAIK Alf's lat name is spelled "Shumway". That spelling error might uncover the cracker as a German.... insightful thought... it could possibly be that. Or, the author of the page featuring Alf could be playing on the English pronunciation of the word "school" (note the "sch" at the beginning of the word) which would be "sk-oool"... which would then render the word "Schumway" to be pronounced "Skum-way".. of course, I could be ranting on a wild tangent here....
I certainly agree that, generally, the majority of software improves over time, as it continues to be tweaked and reworked and tested. The same would/should also apply to hardware, as new innovations are made. even his precious windows would seem to be better now than when it first came out (though that's not saying much for it, eh?) so bob, how about some linux?
"'Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?'"....of course, the answer to this rhetorical question would be no. Even though the actions of the governments (here, to force the use of interception) may not infringe upon your freedom to use the internet, to teleconference, to network, etc., they _are_ infringing upon your freedom to communicate privately using technology (and by that I mean any technology that is necessary to not talk to the person(s) face-to-face).
And I personally don't see the point. I'm sure there are valid uses for being able to intercept some forms of communication, or to intercept all forms at certain levels, but I see no purpose in imposing upon others your "desire" to be able to intercept all communications at all levels. It smacks of violation of basic human rights, and I don't see how they (the public, the legislators, whomever) are not stomping it into the ground as we speak (unless of course, there is/are completely splendid reasons for this interception business, in which case, I apologize, and I'd certainly like to know what those splendid reasons are).
Other than that, I say: give me privacy or give me death!
the concept of a lightsaber actually cutting through things is akin, in my mind, to the idea of a laser actually cutting through something. apparently, it is the intensity of the thing (or something of that nature) that allows it to sever objects and create various other forms of destruction. back to the laser thought, we have laser pointers, lasers in our CD players, etc, that don't cut through objects, and then you have industrial and medical lasers, that do. plus, if anyone ever reads "Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology" by Bill Smith, they'd know all about lightsabers....
yeah, he's kinda boring, but the thing is, it's because all the interview was simply his speculation(s) on things, his ideas of how things will happen, his take on things. it would be the same if the interviewer had interviewed any one of us. We can't expect it to be that big of a thrill because (1) he wasn't announcing anything new and (2)we aren't ga-ga over him. If we thought he was some gushy new star, we'd probably be a lot more enthralled by what he had to say. it's simple... my thoughts wouldn't be exciting either, though they may be as good as his...
If they could pass current with subatomic particles, it would seem the limit could go lower (unless, as was suggest by the previous comment, they are already using subatomic particles). Or, I was thinking, if they could possibly make a chip runnig at 10,000 mHz, wouldn't the cooling systems needed by it being rather expensive, etc. for that to be an impracticality?
I agree. He seems to forget about Windows and where it came from. Also, he neglects to elaborate on why windows is better. He seems only to claim windows is better because so many people use it. it doesn't appear as though he has much experience with either operating system, for him to write such as this, with no actual comparisons of software, capabilities, etc. To me, the only reason the Unixes aren't as widely used among the general public is that people are too lazy to take the time to learn them, instead sticking with windows, which they don't fully understand either. But as far as I'm concerned, Unix/Linux will never die, because there are too many people out there who can see the difference and who enjoy the challenge too much to give it up (and who see the benefits of "open sores".....)
"Before it was called the open source movement it was called 'academia'"..... why, pray tell, is that? Were they going for the greek lyceum kind of thing (or whoever did those lyceums)?
It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to derive an arbitrary number for the amount of bits contained in a memory, because that would entail assuming that all memories are the same: the same memory, therefore the same size, shape, color, length, involve the same people, places, things, etc. That is the only way to set a standard for the size of a memory. Some might argue to this that it would be possible to take one memory, set it at a certain number of bits, and measure every other memory against it as being a certain number of bits smaller or larger, but this is also an impossibility. Each person may feel that say, one, of their memories is larger than someone else's, perhaps because they feel it's longer or more complicated, or because it links to other memories, which they might include with the original memory. With this method of comparison would come into play each individual's person feelings as to the grave importance of their memories, as they are their own, which would cause many evaluations of the size of memories to be based upon people's feelings instead of an un-biased, scientific view. The only way to compare all memories as being smaller or larger than the originally, arbitrarily set memory (in bit-wise size) would be if one, and only one, person had all memories from every person (past, present, and future) in their brain so that the same, relative-measurement standard was used to evaluate the size of every memory, but here again is an impossibility. In my opinion, it is not possible to compare the brain to the storage capacity of a computer, because I don't think anyone has fully understood how the brain stores memories, thoughts, etc. The brain does not store memories, etc. by writing them physically to disk as a computer does. I've heard it said, (although, sadly, I have no documentation of it) that the brain stores everything that a person has experienced, and that if there were to be a way to connect it to a screen, one could play the entire events of someone's life (through their memories). However, computers have storage limits, based on size, of disks. No matter how small people make hard drives, they will still have to continue to add hard drives for a computer to have more memory. However, brains (if what I said earlier is true) appear to have infinite storage capacity in their finite size. Therefore, it is apparent that you can not compare the "storage capacity" of a brain to that of a computer, because it would seem that a brain has limitless storage capacity! (Besides the fact that a brain is a squishy mass of neurons, and a computer is an assemblage of plastic, metal, etc....)
Yes, I think you are missing something. Cloning as I see it (as done by man) is an attempt to be God. God, and God alone, decides when and where he'd like his identical (insert # here) siblings to be. Whereas, with a clone, it is man who is choosing who he'd like to clone, and most likely, they're (whoever is going to be performing the cloning) going to clone existing people, which, if the clone ever developed (and, as the article mentions opposers suggest) a full-fledged human, you've just made another of yourself, a person who is (or would be in to me, if I were cloned) infringing upon your right to be a unique person as God chose you to be, by not giving you twin(s). Cloning is also not necessarily a good thing, because in "natural born" twins, the twins (or triplets, etc.) live natural, healthy, "long" lives, as opposed to the apparent problems surfacing with the cloned sheep Dolly (her "telomeres" - I think that's the word - are shortening abnormally quickly, which is an indication of cell death, because when the telomeres are gone, the cell is usually triggered to kill itself). I would personally take this as a major indication that cloning is not something we should be doing. I wish that the technology had never been discovered, because now that it has, the inevitable will happen because curiosity can't easily be stopped. I personally have never really taken to the idea of artificial insemination; I personally think that if God wanted someone to have a child, he'd give them one, instead of them going to a specialist and pracically forcing the thing! However, blindness to reality and greed tend to drive people to do things that aren't "right," though the term "right" is wide-open to interpretation, according to one's personal beliefs and values. Nevertheless, I see cloning as an overstepping of man's boundaries and it can't be likened to twins (triplets, etc.) because they are created at the same time, from the same cell; a healthy cell that has just begun its journey into life, is just beginning to divide for the first time(s), etc., as opposed to the cells used for cloning, which are old and worn out. There is simply no possible way to compare the two and have a valid argument.
My first experience with a computer was with an Apple ][e, programming simple things like making our name tile across the screen...... those were the simple days. The coolest game around was Oregon Trail. (I always broke an axel while crossing those darn rivers...) I wish I had one of those things, just to play around with. Oh well. =)
Yeah, the important thing to remember is that Linux is better (as far as I'm concerned) than Microsoft, and that yes, if you want something that isn't there, you have the option of making it yourself, with Linux. Whereas, with MS, I don't know what you'd do. The kernel's job is to run the system, provided the tools you want it to run, which is where your open sourcing and make-it-yourself come in. And as far as I'm concerned, it didn't appear that Mr. Morgenthal has ever used Linux. He just seems to be drawing from his [meager] knowledge of open-sourcing and from the "rave reviews" of Linux to which he refers. Perhaps if he'd installed it and worked with it some, he'd note the improvement over MS (those darn GPFs). I think anyone who's going to try to write a report warning people against Linux or encouraging them to use it, as opposed to MS, should go out and play with both of them to ensure that they have a right to state what they're trying to say.
I enjoyed the film to, and I must agree that they incoporated a lot of wit into it....
My favorite part of the movie would have to be the part where Felicity and Austin entertain themselves by "harrassing" (by way of kissing, changing his clothes, teasing him) the Royal Guard. Furthermore, I would like to express my disappointment at the heightened use of profanity in this movie. I don't recall it being used in the first one (though it may have been there, I can't recall), but it's everywhere in this one. I don't mean to be a stuffie or a narrow-minded, idealistic naivette, but I don't enjoy profanity, though I realize that virtually 99.99999% of movies these days use it, as well as good portions of the population... Nevertheless, it's my firm conviction that life can continue without it, although it makes for an expressive flavoring particle!
According to those marvelous little benchmark graphs, my Cyrix MMX 233 is looking pretty shoddy.... I wonder, though, how much of a noticeable difference there is in performance. Checking out the Cyrix page http://www.cyrix.com and looking at a couple of the performance tests show the Cyrix MII as performing better than a Celeron, which, if Rise is supposed to be [soon] competing with, confuses me.... Of course, they might have been different chips, I couldn't actually tell, and they were different tests, as well.... Anybody have a better fix on things? (Perhaps I should chunk the Cyrix, eh?)
I agree... i think it's a perfect idea, if and only if Microsoft is able to re-write (from scratch) their own version of Java. of course, it wouldn't be their own version of Java, because that seems to imply that they've modified Java for themselves, in the same manner that someone creates their own distribution of Linux. rewriting from scratch existing non-free software is what makes the world a better place; because if you can rewrite it yourself for free, do it and not pay the price. (gee, if only _I_ could do that.....)
Yeah... I kinda thought of microsoft and linux as arch-enemies. Not that users of Linux specifically hate users of Microsoft (or Microsoft itself... or vice versa), just that, as a general condition, Linux is in a class by itself that lends its supporters to "see the light" and not like windows anymore (if they haven't already lost all good opinion for M$) Personally, I never plan to use any Microsoft product/software tool under linux on my computer. Its [almost] taboo.
Perhaps that's because we cannot think in pure logic. maybe, just maybe, thinking purely would enable us to see clearly, and everything would be revealed to us and relating thoughts (at least through words) would no longer be necessary because we would know what each others' thoughts were. Of course, thinking in pure logic is impossible with the brains that humans have, and because thinking in pure logic involves perfection, a condition which I do not believe exists on Earth, at least not in your run-of-the-mill human. Jesus, on the other hand, is/was the exception....
however, I think this is true, or at least could be... then again, I wouldn't really know, would I?
I personally think that, yeah, if you're the one writing and freely distributing the software, you can do whatever you want with it, but like many have said, if it's really "free," you'd be able to change the code and stop the stupid banners from waving.. b/c, personally (again) I don't like ads. They hinder my thought processes and, in this case, I feel that I'd think less of the company that did them if they decided to continue with their plan to imbed the adds.For me, I simply don't like commercialism, of any sort. Although, I do realize that it helps me become acquainted with new things that I might like, I wish there were a way to have media devoted to commercialism (i.e., a certain TV channel, a certain newspaper, a certain magazine or section thereof.. etc.) so that you could skip over it if you so chose, but they'd still be available.
Slashdot Mirror
as long as AMD can keep there MHz up with intel, it should be an intresting year or so. :)
;)
woo hoo! Anything to present more choice in America. I'm all for some non-intel chips to come along and kick some butt.. that's what makes the world a better place.
AFAIK Alf's lat name is spelled "Shumway". That spelling error might uncover the cracker as a German....
insightful thought... it could possibly be that. Or, the author of the page featuring Alf could be playing on the English pronunciation of the word "school" (note the "sch" at the beginning of the word) which would be "sk-oool"... which would then render the word "Schumway" to be pronounced "Skum-way".. of course, I could be ranting on a wild tangent here....
yeah, or they could call it "Head II: twice the Head"
or, "2 Heads are better than one"
(or something dorky like that......)
Yeah, that closing line was classic.
I certainly agree that, generally, the majority of software improves over time, as it continues to be tweaked and reworked and tested. The same would/should also apply to hardware, as new innovations are made. even his precious windows would seem to be better now than when it first came out (though that's not saying much for it, eh?) so bob, how about some linux?
"'Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?'" ....of course, the answer to this rhetorical question would be no. Even though the actions of the governments (here, to force the use of interception) may not infringe upon your freedom to use the internet, to teleconference, to network, etc., they _are_ infringing upon your freedom to communicate privately using technology (and by that I mean any technology that is necessary to not talk to the person(s) face-to-face).
And I personally don't see the point. I'm sure there are valid uses for being able to intercept some forms of communication, or to intercept all forms at certain levels, but I see no purpose in imposing upon others your "desire" to be able to intercept all communications at all levels. It smacks of violation of basic human rights, and I don't see how they (the public, the legislators, whomever) are not stomping it into the ground as we speak (unless of course, there is/are completely splendid reasons for this interception business, in which case, I apologize, and I'd certainly like to know what those splendid reasons are).
Other than that, I say: give me privacy or give me death!
the concept of a lightsaber actually cutting through things is akin, in my mind, to the idea of a laser actually cutting through something. apparently, it is the intensity of the thing (or something of that nature) that allows it to sever objects and create various other forms of destruction. back to the laser thought, we have laser pointers, lasers in our CD players, etc, that don't cut through objects, and then you have industrial and medical lasers, that do. plus, if anyone ever reads "Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology" by Bill Smith, they'd know all about lightsabers....
Heck with mirrors (although it'd be really nice).. i just want a copy for myself! If someone finds a way to get it, post it (please)!
yeah, he's kinda boring, but the thing is, it's because all the interview was simply his speculation(s) on things, his ideas of how things will happen, his take on things. it would be the same if the interviewer had interviewed any one of us. We can't expect it to be that big of a thrill because (1) he wasn't announcing anything new and (2)we aren't ga-ga over him. If we thought he was some gushy new star, we'd probably be a lot more enthralled by what he had to say. it's simple... my thoughts wouldn't be exciting either, though they may be as good as his...
If they could pass current with subatomic particles, it would seem the limit could go lower (unless, as was suggest by the previous comment, they are already using subatomic particles). Or, I was thinking, if they could possibly make a chip runnig at 10,000 mHz, wouldn't the cooling systems needed by it being rather expensive, etc. for that to be an impracticality?
I agree. He seems to forget about Windows and where it came from. Also, he neglects to elaborate on why windows is better. He seems only to claim windows is better because so many people use it. it doesn't appear as though he has much experience with either operating system, for him to write such as this, with no actual comparisons of software, capabilities, etc. To me, the only reason the Unixes aren't as widely used among the general public is that people are too lazy to take the time to learn them, instead sticking with windows, which they don't fully understand either. But as far as I'm concerned, Unix/Linux will never die, because there are too many people out there who can see the difference and who enjoy the challenge too much to give it up (and who see the benefits of "open sores".....)
"Before it was called the open source movement it was called 'academia'"..... why, pray tell, is that? Were they going for the greek lyceum kind of thing (or whoever did those lyceums)?
It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to derive an arbitrary number for the amount of bits contained in a memory, because that would entail assuming that all memories are the same: the same memory, therefore the same size, shape, color, length, involve the same people, places, things, etc. That is the only way to set a standard for the size of a memory. Some might argue to this that it would be possible to take one memory, set it at a certain number of bits, and measure every other memory against it as being a certain number of bits smaller or larger, but this is also an impossibility. Each person may feel that say, one, of their memories is larger than someone else's, perhaps because they feel it's longer or more complicated, or because it links to other memories, which they might include with the original memory. With this method of comparison would come into play each individual's person feelings as to the grave importance of their memories, as they are their own, which would cause many evaluations of the size of memories to be based upon people's feelings instead of an un-biased, scientific view. The only way to compare all memories as being smaller or larger than the originally, arbitrarily set memory (in bit-wise size) would be if one, and only one, person had all memories from every person (past, present, and future) in their brain so that the same, relative-measurement standard was used to evaluate the size of every memory, but here again is an impossibility. In my opinion, it is not possible to compare the brain to the storage capacity of a computer, because I don't think anyone has fully understood how the brain stores memories, thoughts, etc. The brain does not store memories, etc. by writing them physically to disk as a computer does. I've heard it said, (although, sadly, I have no documentation of it) that the brain stores everything that a person has experienced, and that if there were to be a way to connect it to a screen, one could play the entire events of someone's life (through their memories). However, computers have storage limits, based on size, of disks. No matter how small people make hard drives, they will still have to continue to add hard drives for a computer to have more memory. However, brains (if what I said earlier is true) appear to have infinite storage capacity in their finite size. Therefore, it is apparent that you can not compare the "storage capacity" of a brain to that of a computer, because it would seem that a brain has limitless storage capacity! (Besides the fact that a brain is a squishy mass of neurons, and a computer is an assemblage of plastic, metal, etc....)
Yes, I think you are missing something. Cloning as I see it (as done by man) is an attempt to be God. God, and God alone, decides when and where he'd like his identical (insert # here) siblings to be. Whereas, with a clone, it is man who is choosing who he'd like to clone, and most likely, they're (whoever is going to be performing the cloning) going to clone existing people, which, if the clone ever developed (and, as the article mentions opposers suggest) a full-fledged human, you've just made another of yourself, a person who is (or would be in to me, if I were cloned) infringing upon your right to be a unique person as God chose you to be, by not giving you twin(s). Cloning is also not necessarily a good thing, because in "natural born" twins, the twins (or triplets, etc.) live natural, healthy, "long" lives, as opposed to the apparent problems surfacing with the cloned sheep Dolly (her "telomeres" - I think that's the word - are shortening abnormally quickly, which is an indication of cell death, because when the telomeres are gone, the cell is usually triggered to kill itself). I would personally take this as a major indication that cloning is not something we should be doing. I wish that the technology had never been discovered, because now that it has, the inevitable will happen because curiosity can't easily be stopped. I personally have never really taken to the idea of artificial insemination; I personally think that if God wanted someone to have a child, he'd give them one, instead of them going to a specialist and pracically forcing the thing! However, blindness to reality and greed tend to drive people to do things that aren't "right," though the term "right" is wide-open to interpretation, according to one's personal beliefs and values. Nevertheless, I see cloning as an overstepping of man's boundaries and it can't be likened to twins (triplets, etc.) because they are created at the same time, from the same cell; a healthy cell that has just begun its journey into life, is just beginning to divide for the first time(s), etc., as opposed to the cells used for cloning, which are old and worn out. There is simply no possible way to compare the two and have a valid argument.
My first experience with a computer was with an Apple ][e, programming simple things like making our name tile across the screen...... those were the simple days. The coolest game around was Oregon Trail. (I always broke an axel while crossing those darn rivers...)
I wish I had one of those things, just to play around with. Oh well. =)
Yeah, the important thing to remember is that Linux is better (as far as I'm concerned) than Microsoft, and that yes, if you want something that isn't there, you have the option of making it yourself, with Linux. Whereas, with MS, I don't know what you'd do. The kernel's job is to run the system, provided the tools you want it to run, which is where your open sourcing and make-it-yourself come in.
And as far as I'm concerned, it didn't appear that Mr. Morgenthal has ever used Linux. He just seems to be drawing from his [meager] knowledge of open-sourcing and from the "rave reviews" of Linux to which he refers. Perhaps if he'd installed it and worked with it some, he'd note the improvement over MS (those darn GPFs). I think anyone who's going to try to write a report warning people against Linux or encouraging them to use it, as opposed to MS, should go out and play with both of them to ensure that they have a right to state what they're trying to say.
I enjoyed the film to, and I must agree that they incoporated a lot of wit into it....
My favorite part of the movie would have to be the part where Felicity and Austin entertain themselves by "harrassing" (by way of kissing, changing his clothes, teasing him) the Royal Guard.
Furthermore, I would like to express my disappointment at the heightened use of profanity in this movie. I don't recall it being used in the first one (though it may have been there, I can't recall), but it's everywhere in this one. I don't mean to be a stuffie or a narrow-minded, idealistic naivette, but I don't enjoy profanity, though I realize that virtually 99.99999% of movies these days use it, as well as good portions of the population... Nevertheless, it's my firm conviction that life can continue without it, although it makes for an expressive flavoring particle!
According to those marvelous little benchmark graphs, my Cyrix MMX 233 is looking pretty shoddy.... I wonder, though, how much of a noticeable difference there is in performance. Checking out the Cyrix page http://www.cyrix.com and looking at a couple of the performance tests show the Cyrix MII as performing better than a Celeron, which, if Rise is supposed to be [soon] competing with, confuses me.... Of course, they might have been different chips, I couldn't actually tell, and they were different tests, as well.... Anybody have a better fix on things? (Perhaps I should chunk the Cyrix, eh?)
I agree... i think it's a perfect idea, if and only if Microsoft is able to re-write (from scratch) their own version of Java. of course, it wouldn't be their own version of Java, because that seems to imply that they've modified Java for themselves, in the same manner that someone creates their own distribution of Linux. rewriting from scratch existing non-free software is what makes the world a better place; because if you can rewrite it yourself for free, do it and not pay the price. (gee, if only _I_ could do that.....)
Yeah... I kinda thought of microsoft and linux as arch-enemies. Not that users of Linux specifically hate users of Microsoft (or Microsoft itself... or vice versa), just that, as a general condition, Linux is in a class by itself that lends its supporters to "see the light" and not like windows anymore (if they haven't already lost all good opinion for M$) Personally, I never plan to use any Microsoft product/software tool under linux on my computer. Its [almost] taboo.
Perhaps that's because we cannot think in pure logic. maybe, just maybe, thinking purely would enable us to see clearly, and everything would be revealed to us and relating thoughts (at least through words) would no longer be necessary because we would know what each others' thoughts were. Of course, thinking in pure logic is impossible with the brains that humans have, and because thinking in pure logic involves perfection, a condition which I do not believe exists on Earth, at least not in your run-of-the-mill human. Jesus, on the other hand, is/was the exception....
however, I think this is true, or at least could be... then again, I wouldn't really know, would I?
I personally think that, yeah, if you're the one writing and freely distributing the software, you can do whatever you want with it, but like many have said, if it's really "free," you'd be able to change the code and stop the stupid banners from waving.. b/c, personally (again) I don't like ads. They hinder my thought processes and, in this case, I feel that I'd think less of the company that did them if they decided to continue with their plan to imbed the adds.For me, I simply don't like commercialism, of any sort. Although, I do realize that it helps me become acquainted with new things that I might like, I wish there were a way to have media devoted to commercialism (i.e., a certain TV channel, a certain newspaper, a certain magazine or section thereof.. etc.) so that you could skip over it if you so chose, but they'd still be available.