Here's some more words... Have you actually *read* The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence?
Here's the FIRST two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence (also made by our Founding Fathers).
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The last paragraph of The Constitution:
Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Our Founding Fathers opposed a state sponsored church. They did not conceive the USA in absence of religion. In fact, the documents and such all but declare the country to be Christian. At meetings, our Founding Fathers prayed and were religious. Look at all of our governmental ceremonies... the Innaugural Prayer, prayers before/after meetings of different governmental bodies, etc. Those have always existed and were a part of the governmental ceremony.
Our Founding Fathers didn't want a government based on religion or a state sponsored religion. They did not say that religion was 'bad' and/or 'should be avoided'. In fact, the Founding Fathers embraced religion and used it quite a bit, even in governmental functions....or did you think the phrases like "In God We Trust" were recently put on USA coins and monies by Jimmy Swaggart?
Heh.... "mission critical" and "Linux" (or even "Windows") in the same sentence... good one:) I'd mod this post up as Funny +1 if I had mod points right now.
If you actually know software history, Linux isn't that far ahead of anything. Neither is Windows, really. They are both still tired old horses in the scheme of things. I haven't seen anything from either that is really innovative that is/can be used in a production environment. Everything they do is just either copies of what other people are doing on other platforms or even just copies of what other people are doing on the same platform even. I can't even think of one thing on either platform that hasn't already been done by someone else (including themselves) sometime in the past.
Still... this basic principle will remain: Linux will remain a small player until new game titles are available for it in a timely fashion with respect to the Windows releases. Games won't come to Linux until the game houses can figure out how to make money selling their games on Linux.
Which is combatted by this: People who use Linux don't like to pay for anything but hardware. (How many of you reading this actually paid for your Linux distribution(s) that you run? I did.)
And this: Games take lots of money up front to make. Game programmers work 80+ hour weeks under high pressure so game houses typically pay their employees since they cannot keep up with the schedule by 'hobby' programming (program at night for free while working a 'normal' job to pay the bills, effectively subsidizing the game development, which is how a lot of OSS is written.
Until you can resolve this conundrum, Windows will still be on top.
I'm a guy. When I get a game, I may look at the T&A for a few minutes, but after I get into the game, I could care less what the model was. Most of the time, I'm playing in first-person view anyway so I can't even see myself. I could just be a square sliding around on the screen for all I care. If the game isn't fun, even having pr0n women in it won't save it.
Yeah... I find that after a long time playing computer programmer, I have this urge to try to reprogram the dragons to be easier to kill when I see them.
Yup... IBM's laughing all the way to the bank on it. "We get all these nerds to do our work for us... and get this... they do it for FREE! Then we sell it and make money! What a deal!"
NAT. Games that you connect to a server to play should work fine. Games where you have to run a server and/or are peer-to-peer may have issues. However, if you have a game that requires an IP to connect, you can use port redirection in your router to deal with it. Unfortunately, this means that only one of you can play it at a time as all the traffic will go to that one computer.
Many ISPs will allow you to get multiple IPs from them but it usually costs a bit extra.
1) Core based processors have more internal/embedded synchronization built in, especially related to on chip caching. SMP relies more heavily on the O/S for maintaining concurrency.
Not sure what this means. Cache snooping is hardware based and is not controlled manipulated by the OS unless the CPUs allow it to be turned off/on. Non-cache coherent systems are a bear and I don't know of anyone who would build such a system when the CPUs in question (in this case, AMD Opteron or Intel P4) have it built in.
2) Connection between processors is shorter and theoretically faster. The big gain here is that the MB components for SMP are all integrated on the CPU, so everything is simplified and compressed.
Because the logic is built on-die does not necessarily make it more simple. It can be basically the same logic, just moved from the external chipset onto the die.
3) Cache in SMP is separate to each processor, core-processors share the cache between the processors. SMP must maintain cache concurrency... this the basis of threading headaches and this takes process cycles to do so. However, sharing the cache in a core processor is often a problem (Intel) if the cache isn't big enough. AMD currently does this better.
Except in the cases we are talking about (AMD Opterons and Intel P4s), neither have a shared cache at any level. There may be later versions of the CPUs that have it, but we won't be seeing them this year (or maybe next either).
4) SMP means higher license costs for multiple processors, core based processors are considered one processing unit (at least to MS).
Yes, this is purely artificial. There's functionally no difference between a dual core and a dual CPU (SMP) machine.
The main thing about multi-core vs. multi-chip SMP (both are SMP, btw, just different implementations of it) is computational density. With multi-chip, you have to have a socket and traces for each CPU on the motherboard. This takes area and having a bunch of CPUs makes you have a big motherboard. Two CPUs = 2X the area on the motherboard, for example. A dual core CPU takes the same space as a single core one. With multi-core, you cut the number of sockets and traces down, thus making the thing cheaper to make.
Have you ever seen a dual socket microATX board? A dual-core microATX machine is very doable because it's really not much different from the single socket board.
With dual-core CPUs, that single board turns into a dual, that dual turns into a quad and that quad turns into an octo? as if by magic. Basically, this gives you 2X the computational density by using dual-core CPUs. Similar calculations can be made using quad core CPUs to show 4X the computational density.
Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda. Developing and testing a dual core CPU is "harder" than a single core (2x as much testing). Not only that, chip yields would have been significantly worse at start up (AMD already had problems at the start). Not only that, they had to wait until 90nm in order to make the things small enough to be reasonably sized AND low enough voltage to reduce power/heat (processes were 130nm at the time of the Opteron release). AND (and this is a big AND) AMD had been hemorrhagging money in buckets for many quarters before the Opteron release.
Chips these days aren't "let's design a CPU to release next week". It's more like "let's design a CPU to sell 3 years from now". AMD new and planned for multi-core way back (just look at the design...) The problem is that they couldn't keep bleeding money like they were. If they had waited until dual cores were 'perfected', they would have been in serious financial trouble to the point of being bankrupt or near-so now, as they wouldn't have been released yet. Not only that but until the Opterons/Athlon 64s were released, the P4s were cleaning the clocks on the Athlon XPs.
AMD did just fine by release what they did when they did.
As far as Intel guessing what was on AMD's mind... go look up the code name Yamhill. That was Intel's 'black' project for 64-bit extensions to x86 from way back where they were trying to catch up with AMD.
Hyperthreading was an attempt to get more out of the CPU. Intel knew how bad Netburst stalled and were trying to get more out of it.
Well... as geeky as it sounds, my wife and I met through Everquest. We knew each other in-game and from guild meetings for about 3 years prior to our first date.
Even when I was single, I had several machines and would frequently 2-box or 3-box as needed (in addition to having a box or two for other uses like web surfing for walk-throughs and my Ranger2k box). Between us, we had six EQ accounts as well and we regularly played four of them each night (2box each).
Anyway, we both played EQ and now EQ2. We each have two boxes to play on as well as a Linux server for whatever and another machine or two to look up stuff while we play.
We have broadband, some switches, a router, etc. for networking and a few computers:)
Yup, folks who claim the EQ raids are boring have never lead them. There's nothing like trying to get 71 (plus you = 72) crack monkeys in line and hitting on all cylinders in order to beat some encounter. Those folks who say raids are 2 hours of waiting and 10 minutes of fight don't understand the stuff the raid leaders go through in that 2 hours to actually pull the raid off.
Also, there's nothing like the feeling of being the raid leader for the night and having the backing of the entire guild as your 'sword' to 'swing' as you see fit in the game and the feel of the virtual 'power' of that. Having been a member of the top guild on an EQ server for 4.5 years and having lead a few raids, it's *the* challenge of the game to lead successful raids.
I did quit EQ in the end because it did take too much of my time. For years I'd rush home after work to get online in order to get with my guild in order to get the ball rolling for the afternoon. In the end, it was a second job. 10 hours at work everyday followed by nearly 8 hours every night during the week and usually 12+ hours on each day of the weekend. The reason I kept playing for the last year of that was because of the people in the game. We had had several guild gatherings over the years so many of us had actually met and hung out IRL.
I do this. Currently, I have three Athlon64 desktops, two AthlonXP desktops, and one Pentium-M laptop. At the low end, AMD wins right now but the new crop of Dothan/533s just came out and all the benchmarks I've seen show that the Dothans win at integer work over similarly clocked A64s and at most integer work, nothing can touch Dothans when overclocked (shows headroom for products to come). I'm waiting to see the next Pentium-M with 64-bit instructions:) However, when the time comes for me to upgrade my AthlonXP boxes, I'll know what's the fastest/best then and upgrade accordingly.
As far as Itanium, it isn't nor was it ever intended to be a consumer market product. Whether it lives or dies is of no concern to me.
As far as the other poster who had bad luck with Intel chips, my guess is that he bought ultra-cheap/crap motherboards or is a clueless overclocker. I haven't had any problems with either Intel or AMD parts for many years. My first x86 (when I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Wintel world) was an AMD 386/40. Previous to this event, I bought almost anything *but* Wintel (Micro-ColorComputer was my first, Apple ][+, Apple ][c, and Atari 1040ST (not including my experience on Sun workstations, IRIX workstations (SGI), and other machines that I didn't actually own but worked on). Since then, I've owned a number of Pentium parts (including the infamous Pentium with the FPU bug), PentiumPro parts, PentiumIII parts, Pentium4 parts, and Athlon, AthlonXP, and now Athlon64 parts.
I tend to be picky about what I buy and what I do with machines and I've yet to have any problems with any of my machines.
I could rewrite Hitler's autobiography, but use the name "Bob" everywhere that Hitler's is used, but set it in an alternate Earth and the date as 1400AD and it would still be a retold Hitler's life story. The fact that the setting is before or after the real one does nothing to break the tie between the two.
I'm not playing Tale in the Desert 2 because my husband is and I'm opposed to one household paying for two accounts when we can only use one at a time,
The joys of broadband:)
My wife and I both have accounts in EQ2, both had accounts in City of Heroes, and both had 2+ accounts each in EQ1 (yes, we played 4, sometimes 5, simultaneous accounts in EQ1 on 5+ seperate machines, and yes, we did make our own groups. I had a rogue and shaman and a druid, she had a bard and cleric, all with PoTime equipment).
I *loved* "Ender's Game" but quickly got disenchanged (to the point of taking away from "Ender's Game") with the rest of the immediate series after that (through Xenocide books). "Ender's Shadow" and those newer books were OK though.
I read all of the Alvin Maker series (man, what an unclimactic loose thread the ending there was).
Like you, the rest of the "Ender's Game" series turned into nothing more than religious writings to the point where it was about the same as when I go to concerts and see the extreme-right religious groups outside picketing the concert and telling me I'm going to Hell for attending the concert.
After reading so much of OSC's books (even making myself read some to finish the story), I doubt I'll pick up any more books by him.
all I have to say is GO AMD!!! get in that market that you are missing out on. I would love to see them over take intell in sales for note books and desktops. things are looking good for AMD and I couldnt be happier. and who cares if they have a funny name as long as the CPU is fast as lightning then who cares.
Well... if all you care about is that the chip is fast as lightning, why do you care which company makes a faster chip, if all you care about is that the chip is fast as lighting? If Intel is faster (and currently it is), why wouldn't you buy it?
I enjoy the benefits of the competition, but it doesn't matter to me who makes the faster/better chip and I will buy the faster/better one.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some more words... Have you actually *read* The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence?
...or did you think the phrases like "In God We Trust" were recently put on USA coins and monies by Jimmy Swaggart?
Here's the FIRST two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence (also made by our Founding Fathers).
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The last paragraph of The Constitution:
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Our Founding Fathers opposed a state sponsored church. They did not conceive the USA in absence of religion. In fact, the documents and such all but declare the country to be Christian. At meetings, our Founding Fathers prayed and were religious. Look at all of our governmental ceremonies... the Innaugural Prayer, prayers before/after meetings of different governmental bodies, etc. Those have always existed and were a part of the governmental ceremony.
Our Founding Fathers didn't want a government based on religion or a state sponsored religion. They did not say that religion was 'bad' and/or 'should be avoided'. In fact, the Founding Fathers embraced religion and used it quite a bit, even in governmental functions.
People already live in the edge conditions of human habitability... places like the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, and New Jersey.
I guess they mean that places that are currently inhabitted will have to be abandoned.
Heh.... "mission critical" and "Linux" (or even "Windows") in the same sentence... good one :) I'd mod this post up as Funny +1 if I had mod points right now.
If you actually know software history, Linux isn't that far ahead of anything. Neither is Windows, really. They are both still tired old horses in the scheme of things. I haven't seen anything from either that is really innovative that is/can be used in a production environment. Everything they do is just either copies of what other people are doing on other platforms or even just copies of what other people are doing on the same platform even. I can't even think of one thing on either platform that hasn't already been done by someone else (including themselves) sometime in the past.
Still... this basic principle will remain: Linux will remain a small player until new game titles are available for it in a timely fashion with respect to the Windows releases. Games won't come to Linux until the game houses can figure out how to make money selling their games on Linux.
Which is combatted by this: People who use Linux don't like to pay for anything but hardware. (How many of you reading this actually paid for your Linux distribution(s) that you run? I did.)
And this: Games take lots of money up front to make. Game programmers work 80+ hour weeks under high pressure so game houses typically pay their employees since they cannot keep up with the schedule by 'hobby' programming (program at night for free while working a 'normal' job to pay the bills, effectively subsidizing the game development, which is how a lot of OSS is written.
Until you can resolve this conundrum, Windows will still be on top.
I'm a guy. When I get a game, I may look at the T&A for a few minutes, but after I get into the game, I could care less what the model was. Most of the time, I'm playing in first-person view anyway so I can't even see myself. I could just be a square sliding around on the screen for all I care. If the game isn't fun, even having pr0n women in it won't save it.
My car is in there too, but mine is silver and I don't have that bug honkin ugly basket handle of a wing in the back. :)
WoW (EQ, EQ2, etc) all work fine using NAT.
Yeah... I find that after a long time playing computer programmer, I have this urge to try to reprogram the dragons to be easier to kill when I see them.
Yup... IBM's laughing all the way to the bank on it. "We get all these nerds to do our work for us... and get this... they do it for FREE! Then we sell it and make money! What a deal!"
NAT. Games that you connect to a server to play should work fine. Games where you have to run a server and/or are peer-to-peer may have issues. However, if you have a game that requires an IP to connect, you can use port redirection in your router to deal with it. Unfortunately, this means that only one of you can play it at a time as all the traffic will go to that one computer.
Many ISPs will allow you to get multiple IPs from them but it usually costs a bit extra.
Memory as in on-die cache... yes, RAM... no:
1) Core based processors have more internal/embedded synchronization built in, especially related to on chip caching. SMP relies more heavily on the O/S for maintaining concurrency.
Not sure what this means. Cache snooping is hardware based and is not controlled manipulated by the OS unless the CPUs allow it to be turned off/on. Non-cache coherent systems are a bear and I don't know of anyone who would build such a system when the CPUs in question (in this case, AMD Opteron or Intel P4) have it built in.
2) Connection between processors is shorter and theoretically faster. The big gain here is that the MB components for SMP are all integrated on the CPU, so everything is simplified and compressed.
Because the logic is built on-die does not necessarily make it more simple. It can be basically the same logic, just moved from the external chipset onto the die.
3) Cache in SMP is separate to each processor, core-processors share the cache between the processors. SMP must maintain cache concurrency... this the basis of threading headaches and this takes process cycles to do so. However, sharing the cache in a core processor is often a problem (Intel) if the cache isn't big enough. AMD currently does this better.
Except in the cases we are talking about (AMD Opterons and Intel P4s), neither have a shared cache at any level. There may be later versions of the CPUs that have it, but we won't be seeing them this year (or maybe next either).
4) SMP means higher license costs for multiple processors, core based processors are considered one processing unit (at least to MS).
Yes, this is purely artificial. There's functionally no difference between a dual core and a dual CPU (SMP) machine.
The main thing about multi-core vs. multi-chip SMP (both are SMP, btw, just different implementations of it) is computational density. With multi-chip, you have to have a socket and traces for each CPU on the motherboard. This takes area and having a bunch of CPUs makes you have a big motherboard. Two CPUs = 2X the area on the motherboard, for example. A dual core CPU takes the same space as a single core one. With multi-core, you cut the number of sockets and traces down, thus making the thing cheaper to make.
Have you ever seen a dual socket microATX board? A dual-core microATX machine is very doable because it's really not much different from the single socket board.
Single Opteron motherboard
Dual Opteron motherboard
Quad Opteron motherboard
With dual-core CPUs, that single board turns into a dual, that dual turns into a quad and that quad turns into an octo? as if by magic. Basically, this gives you 2X the computational density by using dual-core CPUs. Similar calculations can be made using quad core CPUs to show 4X the computational density.
Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda. Developing and testing a dual core CPU is "harder" than a single core (2x as much testing). Not only that, chip yields would have been significantly worse at start up (AMD already had problems at the start). Not only that, they had to wait until 90nm in order to make the things small enough to be reasonably sized AND low enough voltage to reduce power/heat (processes were 130nm at the time of the Opteron release). AND (and this is a big AND) AMD had been hemorrhagging money in buckets for many quarters before the Opteron release.
Chips these days aren't "let's design a CPU to release next week". It's more like "let's design a CPU to sell 3 years from now". AMD new and planned for multi-core way back (just look at the design...) The problem is that they couldn't keep bleeding money like they were. If they had waited until dual cores were 'perfected', they would have been in serious financial trouble to the point of being bankrupt or near-so now, as they wouldn't have been released yet. Not only that but until the Opterons/Athlon 64s were released, the P4s were cleaning the clocks on the Athlon XPs.
AMD did just fine by release what they did when they did.
As far as Intel guessing what was on AMD's mind... go look up the code name Yamhill. That was Intel's 'black' project for 64-bit extensions to x86 from way back where they were trying to catch up with AMD.
Hyperthreading was an attempt to get more out of the CPU. Intel knew how bad Netburst stalled and were trying to get more out of it.
Well... as geeky as it sounds, my wife and I met through Everquest. We knew each other in-game and from guild meetings for about 3 years prior to our first date.
:)
Even when I was single, I had several machines and would frequently 2-box or 3-box as needed (in addition to having a box or two for other uses like web surfing for walk-throughs and my Ranger2k box). Between us, we had six EQ accounts as well and we regularly played four of them each night (2box each).
Anyway, we both played EQ and now EQ2. We each have two boxes to play on as well as a Linux server for whatever and another machine or two to look up stuff while we play.
We have broadband, some switches, a router, etc. for networking and a few computers
Yup, folks who claim the EQ raids are boring have never lead them. There's nothing like trying to get 71 (plus you = 72) crack monkeys in line and hitting on all cylinders in order to beat some encounter. Those folks who say raids are 2 hours of waiting and 10 minutes of fight don't understand the stuff the raid leaders go through in that 2 hours to actually pull the raid off.
Also, there's nothing like the feeling of being the raid leader for the night and having the backing of the entire guild as your 'sword' to 'swing' as you see fit in the game and the feel of the virtual 'power' of that. Having been a member of the top guild on an EQ server for 4.5 years and having lead a few raids, it's *the* challenge of the game to lead successful raids.
I did quit EQ in the end because it did take too much of my time. For years I'd rush home after work to get online in order to get with my guild in order to get the ball rolling for the afternoon. In the end, it was a second job. 10 hours at work everyday followed by nearly 8 hours every night during the week and usually 12+ hours on each day of the weekend. The reason I kept playing for the last year of that was because of the people in the game. We had had several guild gatherings over the years so many of us had actually met and hung out IRL.
At least at 35 you don't need to worry about your parents reactions, should they found out...
I would imagine that finding out would take a load off the parents' shoulders...
Yup, they are still there. I see them every day on the drive to/from work and I still enjoy seeing them :)
I do this. Currently, I have three Athlon64 desktops, two AthlonXP desktops, and one Pentium-M laptop. At the low end, AMD wins right now but the new crop of Dothan/533s just came out and all the benchmarks I've seen show that the Dothans win at integer work over similarly clocked A64s and at most integer work, nothing can touch Dothans when overclocked (shows headroom for products to come). I'm waiting to see the next Pentium-M with 64-bit instructions :) However, when the time comes for me to upgrade my AthlonXP boxes, I'll know what's the fastest/best then and upgrade accordingly.
As far as Itanium, it isn't nor was it ever intended to be a consumer market product. Whether it lives or dies is of no concern to me.
As far as the other poster who had bad luck with Intel chips, my guess is that he bought ultra-cheap/crap motherboards or is a clueless overclocker. I haven't had any problems with either Intel or AMD parts for many years. My first x86 (when I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Wintel world) was an AMD 386/40. Previous to this event, I bought almost anything *but* Wintel (Micro-ColorComputer was my first, Apple ][+, Apple ][c, and Atari 1040ST (not including my experience on Sun workstations, IRIX workstations (SGI), and other machines that I didn't actually own but worked on). Since then, I've owned a number of Pentium parts (including the infamous Pentium with the FPU bug), PentiumPro parts, PentiumIII parts, Pentium4 parts, and Athlon, AthlonXP, and now Athlon64 parts.
I tend to be picky about what I buy and what I do with machines and I've yet to have any problems with any of my machines.
You are pretty much right... if no one uses something, it's probably pretty secure :)
I don't know of anyone who uses either anymore.
You want a funny moderation or something?
I could rewrite Hitler's autobiography, but use the name "Bob" everywhere that Hitler's is used, but set it in an alternate Earth and the date as 1400AD and it would still be a retold Hitler's life story. The fact that the setting is before or after the real one does nothing to break the tie between the two.
I'm not playing Tale in the Desert 2 because my husband is and I'm opposed to one household paying for two accounts when we can only use one at a time,
:)
The joys of broadband
My wife and I both have accounts in EQ2, both had accounts in City of Heroes, and both had 2+ accounts each in EQ1 (yes, we played 4, sometimes 5, simultaneous accounts in EQ1 on 5+ seperate machines, and yes, we did make our own groups. I had a rogue and shaman and a druid, she had a bard and cleric, all with PoTime equipment).
I *loved* "Ender's Game" but quickly got disenchanged (to the point of taking away from "Ender's Game") with the rest of the immediate series after that (through Xenocide books). "Ender's Shadow" and those newer books were OK though.
I read all of the Alvin Maker series (man, what an unclimactic loose thread the ending there was).
Like you, the rest of the "Ender's Game" series turned into nothing more than religious writings to the point where it was about the same as when I go to concerts and see the extreme-right religious groups outside picketing the concert and telling me I'm going to Hell for attending the concert.
After reading so much of OSC's books (even making myself read some to finish the story), I doubt I'll pick up any more books by him.
Hogwash! Write first, optimize later...or in the real world: write first, optimize if the customer complains.
Unless your software performance issues are architecturally rooted, in which case you will write first, then rewrite later (much more expensive).
Well... not that I'm a Maclot or anything, but two flavors of machine that are 'newish' at 2GHz are the Opterons and the PowerMacs (2.0GHz G5s).
You mean I gotta walk all the way down to the systemroom to get my information? Crap, no wonder I haven't been able to find it in my office lately...
all I have to say is GO AMD!!! get in that market that you are missing out on. I would love to see them over take intell in sales for note books and desktops. things are looking good for AMD and I couldnt be happier. and who cares if they have a funny name as long as the CPU is fast as lightning then who cares.
Well... if all you care about is that the chip is fast as lightning, why do you care which company makes a faster chip, if all you care about is that the chip is fast as lighting? If Intel is faster (and currently it is), why wouldn't you buy it?
I enjoy the benefits of the competition, but it doesn't matter to me who makes the faster/better chip and I will buy the faster/better one.