As I said elsewhere: this is not a tablet-PC, this is an internet-tablet. It's roughly PDA-sized, and it's NOT "tablet-PC" Microsoft touted few years ago, and this is not a replacement for laptop.
Just because it has the word "tablet" in it does not mean that it's a tablet-PC.
well, if you could have three dual-core Opterons in a system, I would say that those Opterons would walk all over the Niagara. USPARC isn't really that great these days as far as performance is concerned, unless you compensate with lots and lots of cache. And doesn't Niagara use simplified USPARC?
The Niagara would run at around 1GHz and have 3MB of L2 cache. The Opteron-machine would run around 2GHz and have 6MB of L2. Yes Niagara has SMT but I don't think it' enough to compensate. And you can't compare clock-speeds directly, but 1GHz USPARC is not much to write home about these days.
200W for dual-core Opteron? Show me the proof of that particular claim. In reality Opterons are nowhere near 200W. the SYSTEM might consume that much, but not the CPU alone.
For the last bloody time, terrorist are not entitled to due process according to the Geneva Convention!
since they are not being charged of any crime, how can you know they are terrorists? Because the government says so? And if they are "terrorists" and "thugs", then surely they would be found quilty if they were put on trial, right? Right???
... That they had two Linux-organisations: Ximian and SuSE. SuSE had a top-notch distro, lots of expertise (both GUI, kernel and the overall system), great engineers, respectable revenues and profits (they were profitable IIRC) and lots of paying customers. Ximian had a so-so mail-client, Mono and some miscellianeous projects. I don't know about their revenues/profits, but they can't be that big.
So which of these organisations ended up calling the shots at Novell when it comes to Linux? Ximian, of course! And right from the start it seemed that Ximian's main product was FUD and vaporware.
I guess this is a case of brown-nosing and PR winning over great products and solid engineering.
What books are they going to use as reference when teaching ID? Däniken? Oh please, let it be Däniken! But I guess that wont fly, since his "teachings" are not compatible with the religious status-quo.
Look at nvidias drivers on linux! Always well behind other drivers, and filled with bugs because we have to wait for nvidia to get off thier asses and fix the damn thing.
Well, there IS 100% open and free NVIDIA-drivers available as well, and they ship with Xorg. Go use them if you want to, I fail to see why you have a problem with the fact that someone might want to use the binary-driver instead. As to their binary-drivers... Well, they are still order of magnitude better than anything else available on Linux (Ati? HAH!). But I guess you would be happy if there was only the free NVIDIA-drivers available, and no binary-drivers at all?
And do you assume that open drivers automatically mean better drivers? If NVIDIA stopped developing the drivers, and gave the community the needed data to write the drivers themselves, would it be better than their current drivers? Are all open-source drivers bug-free and give optimum performance?
What happens in 10 years when you're trying to use that binary driver to recover data from an ancient device?
If we are talking about NVIDIA here, we would mean recovering data from a PC. In that case I would either replace the vid-card with something else, or use the free drivers that ship with x.org, if I really had to have working X while "recovering data".
Sorry, no, but you're the idiot here, 10GHz. What bladesjester said is that too many scientists refuse to even look at anything that might go against their favorite theories. That isn't science, it's religion.
What bladejester hinted at was that theory of evolution should not be given much credit since it's "just a theory". And lots of scientist look at evolution with critical eye, and the theory is revices and improved all the time.
Science must accept all the facts. If they go against well supported theories, then the new facts have to be carefully examined, sure. But inconvenient facts cannot be discarded out of hand by real scientists.
I see creationists and supporters of ID do that all the time. Evolution, however is revised all the time as new evidence is discovered. ID, however, simply fails to live up to scientific scrutiny.
Nor can inconvenient questions be answered with, "It must be that way, or the theory of [whatever] would be false."
Supporters of ID and creationism do that. They basically "knew" how things happened, and they then set out to find proof to support their claims. Needless to say, that's completely the opposite how things should be done.
Science has to say, "Interesting question. How can we create an experiment to answer it?"
And they ARE doing it. For example the Miller-Urey-Experiment. What I DON'T see is creationist/ID'ers making those experiments. They just say "it was a miracle of God", and leave it at that.
The problem is that so many people take these *theories* as gospel and set out purposely to make anything that might contradict them in the least fail, ignoring evidence or worse. Theories are ideas, not hard fact. A lot of people have lost sight of that and seem to be trying to turn science into the new religion.
I'm sorry, but you just proved that
a) you are a complete idiot b) you have ZERO clue what the word "theory" means in scientific context!
Allow me to quote Wikipedia:
"In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming", for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occuring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening."
If you don't even know what the word "theory" means, then I fail to see how you could debate the merits of THEORY of evolution!
I( thought that I already gave you a good whip from the clue-by-four? Let's just say that you are quite mistaken on your "KDE is harming Linux!"-opinion. But hey, if you are only interested in sucking up to pushers of proprietary software, or you just want to rip off the work of others, without giving anything back, then Qt and KDE might not be ideal for you.
Their laptops and the mini already use different CPUs than the iMac and the towers. (G4s instead of G5s, along with the different motherboards and support chips.)
Yes they do, but not by choice. You can be certain that Apple would just LOVE to use the same CPU across their product-line. But they have no choice on the matter right now. But with Intel they COULD use the same CPU for all their products. So why exactly would they deliberately choose to use different CPU's, when they had a CPU that would fit nicely to their entire product-line? They have to use G4 and G5 right now, because G4 can do things G5 cannot (run cool enough for SFF-machines (Mini) and laptops). But when Apple gets Pentium-M derived x86-CPU's, they have a CPU they could use in SFF-machines, Laptops and hi-end machines. So why should they use PPC as well? What benefit would PPC (I assume we are talking about G5 here) offer? The performance would be more or less the same, but that does not justify supporting two incompatible architectures. If G5 mopped the floor with x86, then it might be justifiable. But it doesn't. It's competetive for sure, but it's not superior (well, it is if you compare it to P4 and/or Xeon, but Apple will not use P4's and Xeons, so it doesn't matter).
NeXT, with far tinier resources than Apple has, used to support their OS on four binary incompatible CPUs, without control over the hardware. I don't think it would be a big stretch to just support x86 and PPC machines.
Of course it CAN be done (just look at Linux or *BSD). But why should it be done? It is an extra hassle and it makes things more complicated than they need to be. If supporting two architectures is so easy, why does Apple need transition-perdiod from PPC to x86? If it's that easy, it should take 1-2 months at most.
And of course Apple has more resources than you can shake a stick at. But what about third-party developers? Why should Apple make their lives harder than they already are, for no benefit at all? Seriously?
As it is, we know Apple is going to be selling a mix of x86 and PPC machines for 18 months or so, and releasing one major OS upgrade during this dual-architecture period.
That 18 months is also known as "relatively short transition-period".
I have yet to hear any valid argument supporting the idea that Apple should offer both PPC and x86. You provided some arguments that it could be doable, but you failed to provide any arguments as to WHY they should do it.
1. More CPU's, more SKU's. And that means more difficulties in inventory-management and increased costs
2. You expect Apple and third-party developers to support two binary-incompatible CPU's in the long run? PPC and x86 are very different, supporting both is an added hassle no-one wants to do. They can and will do it during the relatively short transition-peroid, but they would not want to do it for years to come.
3. Reduced economies of scale. Apple likes to re-use their stuff as much as possible. Having both x86 and PPC would diminish that. Also, if they bought 2 million CPU's from Intel or IBM, they could propably get a nice discount. But if they bought 1 million CPU's from Intel, and 1 million CPU's from IBM, those discounts wouldn't be as big.
4. Why should they? Intel has some nice CPU's in the pipeline that can replace G5 just fine. Why exactly should they keep G5 around? So they and their users could "think different"?
There are plenty of chocolate-makers in Europe, besides Nestle. Being in Finland, the two dominant companies here are Cloetta/Fazer and Kraft Foods (which owns such brands as Marabou and O'boy, as far as chocolate is concerned). There ARE products by Nestle available here (Kitkat for example), but they are not the dominant player. Nestle might be the biggest one overall, but they do not dominate the field, IMO.
This thread started with a claim that nuclear plants are safer than coal, and that is probably true during normal operation, but coal fired plants don't have catastrophic accidents that cost so much to clean up.
They might not have "catastropic accidents", as in blowing up, but they are catastrophy regardless. They spout humungous amounts of pollution, and they spread lots of radioactivity to the atmoshpere and surrounding areas (more so than nuclear power-plants do).
There has been... what, two major nuclear catastrophies? And of those two, only one was TRULY catastrophic, and even in Chernobyl, the mortality-rate was not that big in the end. And the disaster was caused by fundamentally flawed reactor-design, combined with dangerous experiment and incompetent operators. Yes, if accidents happen, the company in question should clean up their mess. But it's not like reactors are blowing up all the time. When you look at the big picture, I would say that nuclear power is the safest method of generating energy, apart from wind and solar.
I've been a Civ player for years. However, as an anarchist, I continue to be annoyed at how the game slanders anarchism and anarchist players.
Oh boo-hoo!
Anarchy and anarchism describe societies that rely on a decentralized system of freedom and economic cooperation.
Anarchy and anarchism is a system where there are no generally accepted rules, since it's about "individual freedom". The rules that are there (and there wold be) are enforced by those with biggest number of guns/thugs. If you told people to "do whatever you want", you would have chaos. Some people would propably try to set up their own ideal system, but there would be others who would oppose that system, and that would cause problems. And if you think that they would just peacefully co-exist, you are amazingly naive. If you give people the possibility to hoard power, they will do so. And some will do so by force. And before you say "but that's not anarchy anymore!". Maybe, but that's what would follow from pure anarchy.
If you claim otherwise, you are living in La-La Land.
If they don't understand double-click how will the OS make any difference?
it has to do what the OS "teaches" the user to do. Windows is pretty bad at this. You double-click on object on the desktop and in the filemanager. But you single-click quick-launch buttons on the taskbar and on the Start-menu. The difference in behavior seems arbitary, and I routinely see people double-click quick-launch buttons. OS X is similar. Double-click in finder and desktop, single-click in Dock.
Of course weblinks are always single-click. And the behavior should be the same everywhere in the system. One of the good things in KDE is that it's single-click by default. That means that the behavior is uniform across the system. You single-click in filemanager, taskbar, Kmenu, dekstop... And you single-click the links in your browser.
For one, compromising ergonomics for everyone for features that only a subset of owners might use isn't a good idea.
I have used camera-phones, and I really haven't seen any evidence of this "compromising of ergonomics". All the camera-phones were just as good as normal phones, as phones without camera were. Besides, this phone is designed for the camera in mind. Don't want a phone with prominent camera-features? There are plenty of those available. And if you want a phone to "just to make phone-calls", may I recommend the Nokia 1101?
And another, a phone that costs as much as a mid-range laptop (laptops start at $500 now) but smaller and easier to steal or lose doesn't seem to be a good idea.
You apparently haven't heard of this. Prices range (IIRC) from $1.500 to something like $5.000. And besides, there are lots and lots of tiny things that are VERY expensive. Jewelry can cost a lot more. Watches can be really expensive.
How good is it as an actual phone? What does it sound like when making a call? Is the antenna any use? How is the microphone?
After using several Nokia phones (1611, 5110, 7110, 6110, 6210, 6310i, 6220, 6260, 6680 and 9300) over the course of the years, I can say that there are no problems in each of the areas you listed. Those are really non-issues that are not really worth reporting on, really.
The N90 is a good phone. It has a good antenna and microphone, and it's easy to use. There, happy?
Slashdot Mirror
As I said elsewhere: this is not a tablet-PC, this is an internet-tablet. It's roughly PDA-sized, and it's NOT "tablet-PC" Microsoft touted few years ago, and this is not a replacement for laptop.
Just because it has the word "tablet" in it does not mean that it's a tablet-PC.
Uh, 770 is not a tablet-PC (which suck). It's an internet-tablet, which is a completely different thing.
well, if you could have three dual-core Opterons in a system, I would say that those Opterons would walk all over the Niagara. USPARC isn't really that great these days as far as performance is concerned, unless you compensate with lots and lots of cache. And doesn't Niagara use simplified USPARC?
The Niagara would run at around 1GHz and have 3MB of L2 cache. The Opteron-machine would run around 2GHz and have 6MB of L2. Yes Niagara has SMT but I don't think it' enough to compensate. And you can't compare clock-speeds directly, but 1GHz USPARC is not much to write home about these days.
200W for dual-core Opteron? Show me the proof of that particular claim. In reality Opterons are nowhere near 200W. the SYSTEM might consume that much, but not the CPU alone.
since they are not being charged of any crime, how can you know they are terrorists? Because the government says so? And if they are "terrorists" and "thugs", then surely they would be found quilty if they were put on trial, right? Right???
... That they had two Linux-organisations: Ximian and SuSE. SuSE had a top-notch distro, lots of expertise (both GUI, kernel and the overall system), great engineers, respectable revenues and profits (they were profitable IIRC) and lots of paying customers. Ximian had a so-so mail-client, Mono and some miscellianeous projects. I don't know about their revenues/profits, but they can't be that big.
So which of these organisations ended up calling the shots at Novell when it comes to Linux? Ximian, of course! And right from the start it seemed that Ximian's main product was FUD and vaporware.
I guess this is a case of brown-nosing and PR winning over great products and solid engineering.
What books are they going to use as reference when teaching ID? Däniken? Oh please, let it be Däniken! But I guess that wont fly, since his "teachings" are not compatible with the religious status-quo.
Well, there IS 100% open and free NVIDIA-drivers available as well, and they ship with Xorg. Go use them if you want to, I fail to see why you have a problem with the fact that someone might want to use the binary-driver instead. As to their binary-drivers... Well, they are still order of magnitude better than anything else available on Linux (Ati? HAH!). But I guess you would be happy if there was only the free NVIDIA-drivers available, and no binary-drivers at all?
And do you assume that open drivers automatically mean better drivers? If NVIDIA stopped developing the drivers, and gave the community the needed data to write the drivers themselves, would it be better than their current drivers? Are all open-source drivers bug-free and give optimum performance?
If we are talking about NVIDIA here, we would mean recovering data from a PC. In that case I would either replace the vid-card with something else, or use the free drivers that ship with x.org, if I really had to have working X while "recovering data".
What bladejester hinted at was that theory of evolution should not be given much credit since it's "just a theory". And lots of scientist look at evolution with critical eye, and the theory is revices and improved all the time.
I see creationists and supporters of ID do that all the time. Evolution, however is revised all the time as new evidence is discovered. ID, however, simply fails to live up to scientific scrutiny.
Supporters of ID and creationism do that. They basically "knew" how things happened, and they then set out to find proof to support their claims. Needless to say, that's completely the opposite how things should be done.
And they ARE doing it. For example the Miller-Urey-Experiment. What I DON'T see is creationist/ID'ers making those experiments. They just say "it was a miracle of God", and leave it at that.
And what you have given us is nothing but FUD. Pure, ignorant FUD. I mean, you are the one who claims that GPL'ed software is "bad for Linux"...
I'm sorry, but you just proved that
a) you are a complete idiot
b) you have ZERO clue what the word "theory" means in scientific context!
Allow me to quote Wikipedia:
"In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming", for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occuring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening."
If you don't even know what the word "theory" means, then I fail to see how you could debate the merits of THEORY of evolution!
I( thought that I already gave you a good whip from the clue-by-four? Let's just say that you are quite mistaken on your "KDE is harming Linux!"-opinion. But hey, if you are only interested in sucking up to pushers of proprietary software, or you just want to rip off the work of others, without giving anything back, then Qt and KDE might not be ideal for you.
Xandors, Mandriva, Slackware, Linspire, MEPIS, Knoppix and Kubuntu for starters.
Yes they do, but not by choice. You can be certain that Apple would just LOVE to use the same CPU across their product-line. But they have no choice on the matter right now. But with Intel they COULD use the same CPU for all their products. So why exactly would they deliberately choose to use different CPU's, when they had a CPU that would fit nicely to their entire product-line? They have to use G4 and G5 right now, because G4 can do things G5 cannot (run cool enough for SFF-machines (Mini) and laptops). But when Apple gets Pentium-M derived x86-CPU's, they have a CPU they could use in SFF-machines, Laptops and hi-end machines. So why should they use PPC as well? What benefit would PPC (I assume we are talking about G5 here) offer? The performance would be more or less the same, but that does not justify supporting two incompatible architectures. If G5 mopped the floor with x86, then it might be justifiable. But it doesn't. It's competetive for sure, but it's not superior (well, it is if you compare it to P4 and/or Xeon, but Apple will not use P4's and Xeons, so it doesn't matter).
Of course it CAN be done (just look at Linux or *BSD). But why should it be done? It is an extra hassle and it makes things more complicated than they need to be. If supporting two architectures is so easy, why does Apple need transition-perdiod from PPC to x86? If it's that easy, it should take 1-2 months at most.
And of course Apple has more resources than you can shake a stick at. But what about third-party developers? Why should Apple make their lives harder than they already are, for no benefit at all? Seriously?
That 18 months is also known as "relatively short transition-period".
I have yet to hear any valid argument supporting the idea that Apple should offer both PPC and x86. You provided some arguments that it could be doable, but you failed to provide any arguments as to WHY they should do it.
we are talking about chocolate, not ice-cream. If you want non-Nestle ice-cream, buy Ingman.
1. More CPU's, more SKU's. And that means more difficulties in inventory-management and increased costs
2. You expect Apple and third-party developers to support two binary-incompatible CPU's in the long run? PPC and x86 are very different, supporting both is an added hassle no-one wants to do. They can and will do it during the relatively short transition-peroid, but they would not want to do it for years to come.
3. Reduced economies of scale. Apple likes to re-use their stuff as much as possible. Having both x86 and PPC would diminish that. Also, if they bought 2 million CPU's from Intel or IBM, they could propably get a nice discount. But if they bought 1 million CPU's from Intel, and 1 million CPU's from IBM, those discounts wouldn't be as big.
4. Why should they? Intel has some nice CPU's in the pipeline that can replace G5 just fine. Why exactly should they keep G5 around? So they and their users could "think different"?
There are plenty of chocolate-makers in Europe, besides Nestle. Being in Finland, the two dominant companies here are Cloetta/Fazer and Kraft Foods (which owns such brands as Marabou and O'boy, as far as chocolate is concerned). There ARE products by Nestle available here (Kitkat for example), but they are not the dominant player. Nestle might be the biggest one overall, but they do not dominate the field, IMO.
That's because you are an idiot. No, really.
They might not have "catastropic accidents", as in blowing up, but they are catastrophy regardless. They spout humungous amounts of pollution, and they spread lots of radioactivity to the atmoshpere and surrounding areas (more so than nuclear power-plants do).
There has been... what, two major nuclear catastrophies? And of those two, only one was TRULY catastrophic, and even in Chernobyl, the mortality-rate was not that big in the end. And the disaster was caused by fundamentally flawed reactor-design, combined with dangerous experiment and incompetent operators. Yes, if accidents happen, the company in question should clean up their mess. But it's not like reactors are blowing up all the time. When you look at the big picture, I would say that nuclear power is the safest method of generating energy, apart from wind and solar.
An infidel! Kill the heretic!
Oh boo-hoo!
Anarchy and anarchism is a system where there are no generally accepted rules, since it's about "individual freedom". The rules that are there (and there wold be) are enforced by those with biggest number of guns/thugs. If you told people to "do whatever you want", you would have chaos. Some people would propably try to set up their own ideal system, but there would be others who would oppose that system, and that would cause problems. And if you think that they would just peacefully co-exist, you are amazingly naive. If you give people the possibility to hoard power, they will do so. And some will do so by force. And before you say "but that's not anarchy anymore!". Maybe, but that's what would follow from pure anarchy.
If you claim otherwise, you are living in La-La Land.
it has to do what the OS "teaches" the user to do. Windows is pretty bad at this. You double-click on object on the desktop and in the filemanager. But you single-click quick-launch buttons on the taskbar and on the Start-menu. The difference in behavior seems arbitary, and I routinely see people double-click quick-launch buttons. OS X is similar. Double-click in finder and desktop, single-click in Dock.
Of course weblinks are always single-click. And the behavior should be the same everywhere in the system. One of the good things in KDE is that it's single-click by default. That means that the behavior is uniform across the system. You single-click in filemanager, taskbar, Kmenu, dekstop... And you single-click the links in your browser.
I have used camera-phones, and I really haven't seen any evidence of this "compromising of ergonomics". All the camera-phones were just as good as normal phones, as phones without camera were. Besides, this phone is designed for the camera in mind. Don't want a phone with prominent camera-features? There are plenty of those available. And if you want a phone to "just to make phone-calls", may I recommend the Nokia 1101?
You apparently haven't heard of this. Prices range (IIRC) from $1.500 to something like $5.000. And besides, there are lots and lots of tiny things that are VERY expensive. Jewelry can cost a lot more. Watches can be really expensive.
After using several Nokia phones (1611, 5110, 7110, 6110, 6210, 6310i, 6220, 6260, 6680 and 9300) over the course of the years, I can say that there are no problems in each of the areas you listed. Those are really non-issues that are not really worth reporting on, really.
The N90 is a good phone. It has a good antenna and microphone, and it's easy to use. There, happy?
Netcraft confirms: The domain controller is dying!