t seems that the current 7450/7455 G4 chips have more than enough "under the hood" to comfortable kick the likes of Photoshop... and everybody's favorite Final Cut Pro.
Sure you can use them but they could sure benefit from more power. Doing digital video even with iMovie is still processor intensive. Sure iMovie is workable with a relatively slow G4 but it would be better if it was faster, had more complex transitions and filters etc. Apple wants every joe to be editing video of his kids, and they want him using a Mac to do it. So even on the low end they want more power under the hood.
Professional users really need more power. FinalCut Pro, Cinama Tools etc. (is Shake available for OSX yet?) are certainly very nice running on a G4, but they would be *much* nicer running on a more powerful chip. Digital video's appetite for processor power (even at the amateur level) is almost insatiable it is certainly nowhere nearly satisfied yet.
I'll remind you that OSX doesn't speak arabic or hebrew, or any right to left languages; and apple doesn have any plans to include support!
OSX HAS Arabic and Hebrew support. I honestly don't know how their Chinese & Japanese support compares to Wintel but it looks pretty good and is one of the things they are touting as an advantage over wintel.
Apple designs one of the bridge chips on it's motherboards
I realized even as I hit submit that Apple does probably design some of their own chips, just not the CPU. The post above your own asserts that Apple even works on the CPU in conjunction with Motorola (and apparantly IBM). I knew they used to do that, I just thought they didn't any longer (I guess I was wrong). Steve slashed a lot of R&D back when they were bleeding red ink - especially homegrown stuff they could outsource and the really out-there speculative research (the Advanced Technology Group). Of course they didn't totally stop (though they did kill the ATG). Now that they are back in the black I would imagine they are also back to investing heavily in R&D. Hopefully that will even include some of the more speculative stuff the ATG used to do.
Since when does Apple have any hardware engineers?
Umm... Since Woz started working in Steve Jobs garage? One of their divisions is the "Hardware Engineering Division"
Even their boards are outsourced
I'm pretty sure that the design is done in-house. some manufacturing may be outsourced.
let alone the actual chips.
I don't know if they STILL have any chip designers (I sort of doubt it) but when AIM first got started the Somerset chip design facility was a joint venture between all three partners including Apple. I believe some of the chip designers at the facility were technically on the books as Apple employees. At the very least the chip designers at Somerset worked closely with Apple.
If Apple had any ability to develop their own CPUs they wouldn't still be stuck with the pre-historic G4, they would simply ditch IBM and use their own chips.
Despite the fact that they DO have hardware engineers, and may even have a few that specialise in chip design to evaluate & work with the other two AIM partners it is obvious that they are not themselves, and are unlikely to become, a chip designers. Though because of the way patent and license agreements between the AIM partners they probably could get into it. But that would be a nightmare, they would bear all the costs and still be stuck with a single supplier (themselves) that would likely fall behind the competition.
If you are saying that a 'scientific' panel of Right to Lifer are just as valid as a panel of secular medical research, than that's just like saying creationism is as valid a 'scientific' theory as evolution.
I think you are going way too far with this parallel. I would submit that there is a significant difference in that Right-to-Lifers are not disputing any scientifically derived facts - they are arguing about the moral significance of certain scientific facts that are NOT in dispute.
Obviously she has a political axe to grind and that will bias her view of the scientific data. Of course a Pro-Choice doctor (whether their views were publicly known or not) on the same panel would be laboring under EXACTLY the same liability. "Reproductive Freedom" and "Right-to-life" are BOTH moral positions not a dispute about scientific facts. They are however influenced by science and they will influence an adherents view the significance of scientific facts. In a more subtle way holding to a religious or philosophical view that says "The morality of either position is unimportant" or holding to a philosphy that says "there is no such thing as morality" will ALSO bias the way the scientist views the data and it's significance to public policy.
It seems we agree that it's desirable to minimize the biases of scientists on the panels. I also agree that political views will always play a part in such panels. But rather than throw up one's hand and say 'politicians will be politicians', I argue that we should PRESS for such reforms actively.
I admit I am a little ambivalent about this. I think reforms that get rid of outright Junk Science should be pursued aggresively. And having the opportunity to rebut the science & give dissenting views a voice seems a positive step. But in issues where reasonable people (& scientists) can disagree I think the administration is entitled to expert advice that shares their goals and agenda. For instance if a strongly environmentalist administration succeeds at the polls I think they are entitled (where the science is debatable, and within reason) to get scientific advise from scientists that share their assumptions. Scientists on these boards if they are hostile to the policies of the administration can throw up a lot of obstacles that frustrate those policies that are not based on widely accepted views of scientists in their field but are at the same time not beyond the pale either. Perfectly plausible but also debatable science can be (and has been) used by panels of technocrats to circumvent the agenda of the ELECTED administration. There WILL be bias it seems fair that with mechanisms to make sure it is within reason it should reflect those that won at the ballot box.
OK. Creationism is just another view no different from evolution, right?
And this is relevent, how? Aside from the fact that social conservatives (presumably including a few creationsits) are among the critics of this development I don't see anything about creationsts at all in this story.
EVERYONE has a viewpoint. But how that viewpoint is arrived at and how many people subscribe to that viewpoint DOES make a difference in terms of its scientific validity or plausibility.
Fine, agree with you so far - aside from one nit-pick "how many people subscribe to a viewpoint" does NOT make a difference in terms of it's scientific validity. Science is concerned with provable truth, the earth wasn't any flatter when the vase majority of the human population believed it to be so.
The whole point of having independent peer panels is to try to keep the recommendations away from the needs of the demagogue or politician of the moment.
These panels are not doing peer review. They are still made up of "peers" though under either administration. To the degree that these panels were scientific before, they remain so now. The new members are just as credentialed as their predecessors. To the degree that they were independent before they remain so now. To the degree that they were ideological before (staffed with scientists with a political agenda) they remain so now. The only change is the ideological direction in which they are biased. That was unfortunate before; it is unfortunate now. It is also inevetable given the nature of the work these boards do and they way they are staffed.
If you're truely so cynical as to believe that all views are the same...
That is not my contention.
...then I suggest you follow the conclusions of the tobacco company funded studies which said the cigarettes are good for you.
Should I also eat apples because of the dreadful carcinogenous effects of Alar? Tobacco companies do not have a corner on Junk Science. The false claims of the harmlessness on behalf of harmful products are junk science, the false claims exaggerating such dangers by activists are junk science. These government review boards have often used such widely discredited junk science as the basis of their opinions. I doubt this will get any better, I doubt it will get much worse.
To believe that the new scientists are massively more biased than their predecessors is to be quite naive about those predecessors and quite cynical about the new ones. Both groups are legitimately credentialed scientists, both sets also reflect certain biases. The fact that the main criticism the well known peer-review publication "the Washington Post" has against these quacks is that the people they are replacing are disgruntled and that one of them was discredited by Dr. Julia Roberts from the Columbia/TriStar Research Institute in Hollywood is telling. You may take these criticisms as fatal to their scientific reputation, I'll reserve judgement until a more creditable institution with more substantive argument comes along to repudiate them.
I DO think that there can be reforms that would minimise the biases of scientists selected for these panels. And I think there can be reforms to minimise the effects of such biases. But even with reforms the nature of the work (which influences public policy) WILL be affected by political agendas. Heck, even in the most purely scientific research environments politics and personal agendas are not unkown (indeed their something of a stereotype & not without reason). It is quixotic to think that politics can be kept out of boards that exist at the junction of politics and science. It is probably better that it is an openly acknowledged reality than an unexamined one.
Re:In the short run, this will make for bad polici
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
but the GOP is made up of rich CEO's and religious... fundamentalists... who have absolutely nothing in common.
Two reasons: first off the core issues to each group are largely irrelevant to the other. Social conservatives are largely unconcerned with fiscal policy and fiscal conservatives are largely unconcerned with social issues. There are certainly many individuals that are part of the GOP for one but oppose it on the other. But an even larger group is supportive of both positions. As you say CEO's want "rich-guy" tax cuts, well most CF's want "middle-class guy" tax cuts so they can agree on tax-cuts that affect all income levels. Businessmen want honest employees, so acknowledment or at least an absense of official hostility towards a christian morality that says "thou shalt not steal" is not something they are fired up to oppose.
The second reason is that both agendas do have a point of commonality. They are both opposed to government, particularly federal government, control. You may scoff and say that CF's want increased government control in issues like abortion. But that is ignoring their argument against it which if you accept is no more pro-government regulation than being for antihomocide laws. In other instances where CF's are supporting government it is long-standing existing laws or practices of local & state governments that are being invalidated by increased federal control. They don't see how an amendment explicitly forbidding only congress from doing something can after 200 years suddenly be found to be binding on their town council. In general though CF's are very distrustful of government control especially in issues related to families. They homeschool or send their kids to private schools they don't like social security numbers, they distrust social workers, etc. etc. etc. Both fiscal and social conservatives are part of what Grover Norquist famously termed "the leave us alone coalition"
Also in both instances they are conservative - as in not liking change, or at least not liking the change being offered. In the past taxes (at all income levels) were significantly lower, there was far less government regulations & intrusion into personal lives and yet a far greater acknowledgement by government of the religious beliefs of those governed - public prayer was common, public education had a decidedly protestant religious cast, laws generally reflected the christian morality & wasn't afraid to say so. Both businessmen and CF's are bound to want to return to (at least some aspects of)that previous social consensus and to oppose increasing change away from it.
CF's are tax exempt, and the CF's look for government grants, even!
While churches are tax exempt most CF's are parishoners and are taxed plenty. Very few CF's have any interest in government grants. While there is certainly some interest in government support of faith based charities most CF's are VERY cautious to downright hostile to them. The more Fundamentalist they are in theology the more distrustful they are of initiatives such as vouchers or grants to faith based charities. They view them as trojan horses for government regulation.
Why? Because stealing software is a violent crime?
You're right. As a non-violent offender he will probably serve an even shorter percentage of his term in an actual prison.
The original poster used the ratio of time sentanced vs. time served for violent crime because violent crimes where the only one used in the source he had at hand.
Life in prison?! And I thought 33 years was rediculous.
Is your kind of gullability and inability to read the cause of wild internet rumors?
Life in Prison -> if your hacking KILLS SOMEBODY. It is essentially a murder conviction it's just (redundantly) making the use of a particular weapon to do so a distinct crime, like vehicular homicide. Your comment is something like opposing vehicular homicide laws by saying: "Life in prison, just for bad driving?"
What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.
But this situation is the exact opposite. These are not review boards are not doing peer review or anything else scientific. They are giving policy advise or at most setting the scientific terms of political debate. This story is not about politicians doing science it is about scientists doing politics! The scientists that HAD been doing politics largely agreed with the biases and policy views of the previous administration. The new administration is intent on getting policy proposals from scientists that agree (on the politics) with them. The best thing that can be said about such boards is that they ARE staffed by scientists (and a few lawyers) and that their findings are based on the available science filtered (as was inevitable) through the political views of the administration.
Applying science to policy is NOT science it is politics. The administration that wins is entitled to it's own advisors (or we end up being ruled by an unelected beuracracy). That's not to say that there isn't room for reform of how science informs the political process, just that this story is not as big or as "anti-science" as is being implied in the article.
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ?
I really don't know. But if you think Holywood, Julia Roberts and Christopher Reeves are competent to peer review his work I think maybe YOU also have some problems being totally objective.
Re:In the short run, this will make for bad polici
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards.
Actually it is the Fundies who are upset because the bio-research board has been stacked with bio-research company scientists.
These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.
The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.
Spending money does not equate to delivering products. GM has had a long history of holding up really cool concept technology (anyone remmber their one-person commuter vechicle?), but only as hype - never as an actual product.
Of course not. But GM is apparently spending more than just PR/play money this time around. The Wired article pegged the actual number at $1 billion. As a GM exec put it that's not "betting the farm" but it's real money (about what they spend on developing a new model). Failing to ship "cool concepts" is not the result of a conspiracy. As you pointed out it costs a "shitload" of money to to produce cars for the consumer market - every idle idea that makes it to a whiz-bang demo is not going to be developed especially if it is a new or risky. Even a behemoth car company can't blow the $1 billion necessary to develop a product unless they are resonably sure it will sell - alot. I'm sure some people want a one-person commuter vehicle I tend to think that GM was right that it was not enough to be worth the expense of developing the idea.
Superior technology argument is partially true (I'd argue that the benefits of hybrids currencly outweigh any negatives for 40% of the US population)
Just being superior isn't sufficient to suplant an established technology it has to be vastly superior. Just the fact that the "benefits outwieght the negatives for 40% of the population" isn't going to cut it. There can't BE any negatives, or they have to be so marginal as to be outweighed (in a painfully obvious way) by the overwhelming positives for everybody.
The auto manufacturers are dabbling with these new technologies, milking concept cars for good PR but not ever really quite producing a product. I'm more inclined to suspect that this has more to do with the technologies not being ready to suplant the old technology than some conspiracy between the oil companies and the car manufacturers. The car companies have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by producing a superior product. The only reason to fail to do so is if it is "superior" only in the eyes of it's proponents but it is in fact inferior in the eyes of the intended consumers. What is intriguing about this article is that the technology seems to be advancing to the point where the advantages aren't only in the eyes of ideologues but are real enough in the eyes of profit conscious auto execs to actually make a stab of it.
You'd think the best way to market a new technology like a hydrogen car would be to say "Just like your current car, except great for the environment (and doesn't rely on foreign oil *cough*)".
Yes, but the problem with your model is that it the new environmentally friendly engine is 10 times more expensive than the Internal Combustion one it is replacing. Sort of a deal killer, BUT the new engine also allows you to build a very different and much, much cheaper to manufacture design that wasn't possible with the old engine. That is why they are pursuing a whole new design.
Point is, they didn't make an alternative to their IC cars because, well, it's suicide for them! Electric cars don't have a tenth of the parts a present-day car has. They don't break down. Theat means the entire service bay portion of the automakers' bottom line is almost GONE.
There may be SOME truth to this BUT the situation is only tenable while the superior technology is only marginally superior. (by superior I mean superior for the purposes of the consumer not in a diffuse "better for everyone" sense) Once the technology reaches a point where it is inarguably better for the consumer the situation will change. One (or all) of the car manufacturers will be driven by greed to betray their tacit agreement if they can produce a product significantly superior to those of his competitors. If greed isn't sufficient motivation FEAR that those competitors will be the ones doing the betraying will be the motiviation. Established companies like the big three auto makers have no particular interest in pursuing speculative research but once the research progresses to something more concrete their interest in it and willingness to develop it will pick up dramatically.
There will probably be a lot of false starts and abortive attempts at introducing any truly new, disruptive technology. What is interesting about this latest effort is that they are spending a significant amount of $$$ on it. Perhaps it is a sign that the technology is starting to reach that critical transition from "vapor" that looks good on paper to something real.
It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
This simply isn't the case. If people are moving to a new technology it is because that new technology has advantages and those advantages include signiciant economic advantages. If the new technology is *really* so much better (something yet to be proven with Fuel Cells) everyone who uses it will be reaping economic advatages from doing so. The new companies that provide the new technology will grow as rapidly (or more rapidly) than their old technology competition shrinks. Many of the old technology companies will BE the new technology companies (IBM used to make typewriters - someday we may mention as just such an historical curiosity that Fuell Cell giant Chevron Energy Solutions used to be an oil company;). There WILL be a lot of disruption but the economy as a whole is always better off when a new & better way to do things kills of an old and less efficient way to do the same task.
Yes, fuel cells aren't "free" they are essentially storing energy that we are generating elsewhere. But the "elsewhere" is what makes it interesting. You are no longer restricted to using oil in millions of tiny internal combustion engines. You can use whatever is most efficient (Nuclear). You can use fuels that we have lying around in abundance (coal) without having to become involved in, and dependent on, the political quagmire of the middle east.
Obviously using coal (which we have in abundance) or using Nukes is probably not what most environmentalists have in mind when they sing the praises of Fuel Cells. Realistically though that is (at least partly) what such a move would mean. Still I think the environmental impact would be a net postive one. Probably significantly so.
The international political impact would also be postive - at least from the point-of-view of the USA. The middle east and all it's problems would shrink in significance. OPEC raises the price of oil? Who cares, other sources of energy pick up the slack. Regional wars in the Middle East? We are free to stay out of it with no ill effects to us no matter the outcome. We can let them sort it out themselves, mediate a dispute or support one side or another without the overriding concern of oil and "our national interest". True in some sense the Middle East would suffer. Their one meal ticket gone they will suffer from poverty & neglect as Africa currently does. But their miseries will be largely self-inflicted (as in Africa) not the result of our machiavelian intrigues in the service of cheap oil.
oppression
1. a. The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power
They are directly oppressed by drugs patents,
No they are NOT. Drug patent owners may be acting in an uncompassionate way but they are not OPRESSING anyone. There is no excersice of power, no one is being forced to do anything. Nobody is any worse off than they were before the patent was issued. The people who feel "oppressed" are complaining that someone else doesn't sacrifice to benefit them NOT that anyone is actively working to their detriment. Are you any less guilty than that drug company? Unless you are currently working as a volunteer in a non-profit drug research lab you have made a choice just as the patent holder has NOT to benefit the poor souls in the third world by giving them free drugs. Is your choice better than a for-profit pharmacutical company? The patent holders actions even with their mixed motives will have incredible benefits for many millions of people. Do your actions benefit more than a few hunderd at most? (I am assuming you volunteer the bulk of your time and money to charity since that is the moral standard you demand from other people)
and more over by cultural oppression (re musslims)
Again 9/10ths of the "cultural oppression" protested by conservative muslims is not that anyone is using POWER to FORCE their beliefs on them but the fact that others of their own people CHOOSE to adopt western culture - watch TV, eat at McDonalds, Drink Coke etc. Offering the fruits of your culture to someone else is not opression even if that culture is in fact inferior. A Talib using a GUN to FORCE you to make the choice he decides IS!
I believe that Kenya, Tanzania Turky, Eygipt etc... were all countries that adopted islam
Well if being given the choice between conversion and death or slavery is "adopting" you are right.
9/10 individuals who get credit are oppressed
The only think opressing them is their own stupidity. Being offered a choice even if it is a bad choice and is enticingly offered is not OPRESSION.
I would never get a loan for morral reasons
I aplaud your financial wisdom. But you prove my point - You are FREE to make a CHOICE. No one is using POWER to FORCE you to do anything. Try making the same choice to abstain from paying taxes;) Do you see the difference between tearing up your credit card and ripping up a summons for a tax audit? I am not arguing that the Power used to Force you to pay taxes is oppression because the use of power is not necessarily arbitrary or cruel (though in some countries the power to tax IS used in an arbitrary and/or cruel way and IS oppression)
Let me clarify my position. In all these cases I am not arguing that western companies & governments are morally pure. They are often guilty of a lack of compassion, dishonesty, and they often encourage people to make poor choices. BUT BEING OFFERED A CHOICE IS NEVER OPPRESSION! Even if it is a bad choice, even if it is a bad choice offered seductively. Having that choice made for you usually IS opression. Being forbidden to own a TV, or eat a burger, or smoke a cigarette is in most cases oppression. Being offered the oppurtunity to do those things is not. YOU may not be happy with the choices your fellow citizens have made. You are probably RIGHT about the wisdom of those choices. BUT if you take it upon yourself to "protect" them from what you (rightly) percieve as their stupidity and act to make the choice for them - YOU are the oppressor!
Muslim doesn't represent terrorism to 2/3 of the world, only the US and the Jewish states (oh that includes the US i think).
And New Yorker stock analysts don't represent oppression to 2/3 of the world, only Marxists (speaking of REAL knock on the door in the middle of the night jackbooted, "workers paradise" gulag opression) and Klansmen/Nazi's (ditto) Ever notice how close either extreme really are to each other? Either way the state will MAKE you be what it wants you to be and all your problems are caused by "The international Banking Conspicary" not your own irresponsible decisions or the failings (corruption, oppression, etc) of your own government.
I won't argue that *some* banks and corporations aren't complicit in oppression around the world but it is governments that are DOING the oppression - gulags, "dissapearances", murders, genocides etc. The argument against those businessmen is NOT generally that the oppress anyone themselves but that they are willing to do business with or aid or seek the aid of those who are. But just as most Arabs are NOT terrorist most businessmen (and certainly most of their employees) are NOT oppresing anyone outside of the fantasies of losers like the KKK (& their islamic equivalent) or other sad little extremists that are upset they are not the ones that get to do the oppressing.
As for Arabs & Muslims not having a reputation outside of the US and the Jewish states (aside from Israel which other state(s) are jewish?) I think you could find a few Pakistani's IndiansFilipinosIndonesians, Susanese, Kenyans & Tanzanians, Germans, Brits, Egyptians, Turks, Swedes, French, Austrians, Romanians, etc. etc. etc. that have fairly sound reasons to disagree with you. The point is not that Muslim==Terrorist but that SOME muslims are and the argument you made that because SOME businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty of oppression (or terrorism) that means ALL businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty and deserve to have a plane flown into their office (or drop bombs on their village). If your argument is collective guilt fine - but it is a two-way street and you have no basis if you adhere to it to protest even *intentional* civillian deaths.
BTW what would I want with a loan?
I don't know, I didn't suggets that you did. Just that not getting one, or having to pay it back if you DID get one is not being oppressed. Two contradictory reasons bankers are often accused of "oppressing" people.
If you don't want to die , don't work in a building or for a company that represents oppression to 2/3 of the world.
How this is different from saying "if you don't want to die don't profess belief in a religion that represents terrorism to 2/3 of the world"? Besides, the hijackers weren't exactly oppressed, they were a bunch of basically middle class or outright wealthy fascists who aren't against oppression as such, they're just frustrated that they aren't the ones doing it. I think a banker that wants to be repaid with interest on a loan YOU ASKED FOR is less oppressive than a Mullah who wants to subject everyone to sharia law relegating anyone who disagrees to dhimmitude.
Havn't you watched fight club latley?
Yes, I have. Interesting ENTERTAINMENT but a little unsatisfying (and shallow) as a political manifesto for anyone other than psychotics or dimwits that mistake it's psychotic rants for some kind of deep thought.
All true. But, it is important to note that the Marshal Plan took effect AFTER we beat the crap out of them. By some of the comments about how we should react to the current situation some peole seem to think it would have been a good idea to resond to Pearl Harbor with a Marshal Plan WITHOUT the intervening war.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the next major advance will be fully remote fighter jets.
You mean Like This?
Mission adaptable wings are not really that new
Cool, but Off-topic. This article has nothing to do with mission adaptable wings. This wing is FLEXIBLE instead of using flaps the whole wing warps.
t seems that the current 7450/7455 G4 chips have more than enough "under the hood" to comfortable kick the likes of Photoshop... and everybody's favorite Final Cut Pro.
Sure you can use them but they could sure benefit from more power. Doing digital video even with iMovie is still processor intensive. Sure iMovie is workable with a relatively slow G4 but it would be better if it was faster, had more complex transitions and filters etc. Apple wants every joe to be editing video of his kids, and they want him using a Mac to do it. So even on the low end they want more power under the hood.
Professional users really need more power. FinalCut Pro, Cinama Tools etc. (is Shake available for OSX yet?) are certainly very nice running on a G4, but they would be *much* nicer running on a more powerful chip. Digital video's appetite for processor power (even at the amateur level) is almost insatiable it is certainly nowhere nearly satisfied yet.
For graphics, acceleration cards do far more than a processor upgrade
For LOOKING at graphics. For Apples core market of people CREATING graphics the CPU is important.
I'll remind you that OSX doesn't speak arabic or hebrew, or any right to left languages; and apple doesn have any plans to include support!
OSX HAS Arabic and Hebrew support. I honestly don't know how their Chinese & Japanese support compares to Wintel but it looks pretty good and is one of the things they are touting as an advantage over wintel.
Apple designs one of the bridge chips on it's motherboards
I realized even as I hit submit that Apple does probably design some of their own chips, just not the CPU. The post above your own asserts that Apple even works on the CPU in conjunction with Motorola (and apparantly IBM). I knew they used to do that, I just thought they didn't any longer (I guess I was wrong). Steve slashed a lot of R&D back when they were bleeding red ink - especially homegrown stuff they could outsource and the really out-there speculative research (the Advanced Technology Group). Of course they didn't totally stop (though they did kill the ATG). Now that they are back in the black I would imagine they are also back to investing heavily in R&D. Hopefully that will even include some of the more speculative stuff the ATG used to do.
Since when does Apple have any hardware engineers?
Umm... Since Woz started working in Steve Jobs garage? One of their divisions is the "Hardware Engineering Division"
Even their boards are outsourced
I'm pretty sure that the design is done in-house. some manufacturing may be outsourced.
let alone the actual chips.
I don't know if they STILL have any chip designers (I sort of doubt it) but when AIM first got started the Somerset chip design facility was a joint venture between all three partners including Apple. I believe some of the chip designers at the facility were technically on the books as Apple employees. At the very least the chip designers at Somerset worked closely with Apple.
If Apple had any ability to develop their own CPUs they wouldn't still be stuck with the pre-historic G4, they would simply ditch IBM and use their own chips.
Despite the fact that they DO have hardware engineers, and may even have a few that specialise in chip design to evaluate & work with the other two AIM partners it is obvious that they are not themselves, and are unlikely to become, a chip designers. Though because of the way patent and license agreements between the AIM partners they probably could get into it. But that would be a nightmare, they would bear all the costs and still be stuck with a single supplier (themselves) that would likely fall behind the competition.
If you are saying that a 'scientific' panel of Right to Lifer are just as valid as a panel of secular medical research, than that's just like saying creationism is as valid a 'scientific' theory as evolution.
I think you are going way too far with this parallel. I would submit that there is a significant difference in that Right-to-Lifers are not disputing any scientifically derived facts - they are arguing about the moral significance of certain scientific facts that are NOT in dispute.
Obviously she has a political axe to grind and that will bias her view of the scientific data. Of course a Pro-Choice doctor (whether their views were publicly known or not) on the same panel would be laboring under EXACTLY the same liability. "Reproductive Freedom" and "Right-to-life" are BOTH moral positions not a dispute about scientific facts. They are however influenced by science and they will influence an adherents view the significance of scientific facts. In a more subtle way holding to a religious or philosophical view that says "The morality of either position is unimportant" or holding to a philosphy that says "there is no such thing as morality" will ALSO bias the way the scientist views the data and it's significance to public policy.
It seems we agree that it's desirable to minimize the biases of scientists on the panels. I also agree that political views will always play a part in such panels. But rather than throw up one's hand and say 'politicians will be politicians', I argue that we should PRESS for such reforms actively.
I admit I am a little ambivalent about this. I think reforms that get rid of outright Junk Science should be pursued aggresively. And having the opportunity to rebut the science & give dissenting views a voice seems a positive step. But in issues where reasonable people (& scientists) can disagree I think the administration is entitled to expert advice that shares their goals and agenda. For instance if a strongly environmentalist administration succeeds at the polls I think they are entitled (where the science is debatable, and within reason) to get scientific advise from scientists that share their assumptions. Scientists on these boards if they are hostile to the policies of the administration can throw up a lot of obstacles that frustrate those policies that are not based on widely accepted views of scientists in their field but are at the same time not beyond the pale either. Perfectly plausible but also debatable science can be (and has been) used by panels of technocrats to circumvent the agenda of the ELECTED administration. There WILL be bias it seems fair that with mechanisms to make sure it is within reason it should reflect those that won at the ballot box.
OK. Creationism is just another view no different from evolution, right?
...then I suggest you follow the conclusions of the tobacco company funded studies which said the cigarettes are good for you.
And this is relevent, how? Aside from the fact that social conservatives (presumably including a few creationsits) are among the critics of this development I don't see anything about creationsts at all in this story.
EVERYONE has a viewpoint. But how that viewpoint is arrived at and how many people subscribe to that viewpoint DOES make a difference in terms of its scientific validity or plausibility.
Fine, agree with you so far - aside from one nit-pick "how many people subscribe to a viewpoint" does NOT make a difference in terms of it's scientific validity. Science is concerned with provable truth, the earth wasn't any flatter when the vase majority of the human population believed it to be so.
The whole point of having independent peer panels is to try to keep the recommendations away from the needs of the demagogue or politician of the moment.
These panels are not doing peer review. They are still made up of "peers" though under either administration. To the degree that these panels were scientific before, they remain so now. The new members are just as credentialed as their predecessors. To the degree that they were independent before they remain so now. To the degree that they were ideological before (staffed with scientists with a political agenda) they remain so now. The only change is the ideological direction in which they are biased. That was unfortunate before; it is unfortunate now. It is also inevetable given the nature of the work these boards do and they way they are staffed.
If you're truely so cynical as to believe that all views are the same...
That is not my contention.
Should I also eat apples because of the dreadful carcinogenous effects of Alar? Tobacco companies do not have a corner on Junk Science. The false claims of the harmlessness on behalf of harmful products are junk science, the false claims exaggerating such dangers by activists are junk science. These government review boards have often used such widely discredited junk science as the basis of their opinions. I doubt this will get any better, I doubt it will get much worse.
To believe that the new scientists are massively more biased than their predecessors is to be quite naive about those predecessors and quite cynical about the new ones. Both groups are legitimately credentialed scientists, both sets also reflect certain biases. The fact that the main criticism the well known peer-review publication "the Washington Post" has against these quacks is that the people they are replacing are disgruntled and that one of them was discredited by Dr. Julia Roberts from the Columbia/TriStar Research Institute in Hollywood is telling. You may take these criticisms as fatal to their scientific reputation, I'll reserve judgement until a more creditable institution with more substantive argument comes along to repudiate them.
I DO think that there can be reforms that would minimise the biases of scientists selected for these panels. And I think there can be reforms to minimise the effects of such biases. But even with reforms the nature of the work (which influences public policy) WILL be affected by political agendas. Heck, even in the most purely scientific research environments politics and personal agendas are not unkown (indeed their something of a stereotype & not without reason). It is quixotic to think that politics can be kept out of boards that exist at the junction of politics and science. It is probably better that it is an openly acknowledged reality than an unexamined one.
but the GOP is made up of rich CEO's and religious... fundamentalists... who have absolutely nothing in common.
Two reasons: first off the core issues to each group are largely irrelevant to the other. Social conservatives are largely unconcerned with fiscal policy and fiscal conservatives are largely unconcerned with social issues. There are certainly many individuals that are part of the GOP for one but oppose it on the other. But an even larger group is supportive of both positions. As you say CEO's want "rich-guy" tax cuts, well most CF's want "middle-class guy" tax cuts so they can agree on tax-cuts that affect all income levels. Businessmen want honest employees, so acknowledment or at least an absense of official hostility towards a christian morality that says "thou shalt not steal" is not something they are fired up to oppose.
The second reason is that both agendas do have a point of commonality. They are both opposed to government, particularly federal government, control. You may scoff and say that CF's want increased government control in issues like abortion. But that is ignoring their argument against it which if you accept is no more pro-government regulation than being for antihomocide laws. In other instances where CF's are supporting government it is long-standing existing laws or practices of local & state governments that are being invalidated by increased federal control. They don't see how an amendment explicitly forbidding only congress from doing something can after 200 years suddenly be found to be binding on their town council. In general though CF's are very distrustful of government control especially in issues related to families. They homeschool or send their kids to private schools they don't like social security numbers, they distrust social workers, etc. etc. etc. Both fiscal and social conservatives are part of what Grover Norquist famously termed "the leave us alone coalition"
Also in both instances they are conservative - as in not liking change, or at least not liking the change being offered. In the past taxes (at all income levels) were significantly lower, there was far less government regulations & intrusion into personal lives and yet a far greater acknowledgement by government of the religious beliefs of those governed - public prayer was common, public education had a decidedly protestant religious cast, laws generally reflected the christian morality & wasn't afraid to say so. Both businessmen and CF's are bound to want to return to (at least some aspects of)that previous social consensus and to oppose increasing change away from it.
CF's are tax exempt, and the CF's look for government grants, even!
While churches are tax exempt most CF's are parishoners and are taxed plenty. Very few CF's have any interest in government grants. While there is certainly some interest in government support of faith based charities most CF's are VERY cautious to downright hostile to them. The more Fundamentalist they are in theology the more distrustful they are of initiatives such as vouchers or grants to faith based charities. They view them as trojan horses for government regulation.
Why? Because stealing software is a violent crime?
You're right. As a non-violent offender he will probably serve an even shorter percentage of his term in an actual prison.
The original poster used the ratio of time sentanced vs. time served for violent crime because violent crimes where the only one used in the source he had at hand.
Life in prison?! And I thought 33 years was rediculous.
Is your kind of gullability and inability to read the cause of wild internet rumors?
Life in Prison -> if your hacking KILLS SOMEBODY. It is essentially a murder conviction it's just (redundantly) making the use of a particular weapon to do so a distinct crime, like vehicular homicide. Your comment is something like opposing vehicular homicide laws by saying: "Life in prison, just for bad driving?"
33 MONTHS not years.
What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.
But this situation is the exact opposite. These are not review boards are not doing peer review or anything else scientific. They are giving policy advise or at most setting the scientific terms of political debate. This story is not about politicians doing science it is about scientists doing politics! The scientists that HAD been doing politics largely agreed with the biases and policy views of the previous administration. The new administration is intent on getting policy proposals from scientists that agree (on the politics) with them. The best thing that can be said about such boards is that they ARE staffed by scientists (and a few lawyers) and that their findings are based on the available science filtered (as was inevitable) through the political views of the administration.
Applying science to policy is NOT science it is politics. The administration that wins is entitled to it's own advisors (or we end up being ruled by an unelected beuracracy). That's not to say that there isn't room for reform of how science informs the political process, just that this story is not as big or as "anti-science" as is being implied in the article.
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ?
I really don't know. But if you think Holywood, Julia Roberts and Christopher Reeves are competent to peer review his work I think maybe YOU also have some problems being totally objective.
The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards.
Actually it is the Fundies who are upset because the bio-research board has been stacked with bio-research company scientists.
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Well, OK then. If Holywood has peer reviewed his work and found it wanting he MUST be a bad scientist.
These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.
The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.
Spending money does not equate to delivering products. GM has had a long history of holding up really cool concept technology (anyone remmber their one-person commuter vechicle?), but only as hype - never as an actual product.
Of course not. But GM is apparently spending more than just PR/play money this time around. The Wired article pegged the actual number at $1 billion. As a GM exec put it that's not "betting the farm" but it's real money (about what they spend on developing a new model). Failing to ship "cool concepts" is not the result of a conspiracy. As you pointed out it costs a "shitload" of money to to produce cars for the consumer market - every idle idea that makes it to a whiz-bang demo is not going to be developed especially if it is a new or risky. Even a behemoth car company can't blow the $1 billion necessary to develop a product unless they are resonably sure it will sell - alot. I'm sure some people want a one-person commuter vehicle I tend to think that GM was right that it was not enough to be worth the expense of developing the idea.
Superior technology argument is partially true (I'd argue that the benefits of hybrids currencly outweigh any negatives for 40% of the US population)
Just being superior isn't sufficient to suplant an established technology it has to be vastly superior. Just the fact that the "benefits outwieght the negatives for 40% of the population" isn't going to cut it. There can't BE any negatives, or they have to be so marginal as to be outweighed (in a painfully obvious way) by the overwhelming positives for everybody.
The auto manufacturers are dabbling with these new technologies, milking concept cars for good PR but not ever really quite producing a product. I'm more inclined to suspect that this has more to do with the technologies not being ready to suplant the old technology than some conspiracy between the oil companies and the car manufacturers. The car companies have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by producing a superior product. The only reason to fail to do so is if it is "superior" only in the eyes of it's proponents but it is in fact inferior in the eyes of the intended consumers. What is intriguing about this article is that the technology seems to be advancing to the point where the advantages aren't only in the eyes of ideologues but are real enough in the eyes of profit conscious auto execs to actually make a stab of it.
You'd think the best way to market a new technology like a hydrogen car would be to say "Just like your current car, except great for the environment (and doesn't rely on foreign oil *cough*)".
Yes, but the problem with your model is that it the new environmentally friendly engine is 10 times more expensive than the Internal Combustion one it is replacing. Sort of a deal killer, BUT the new engine also allows you to build a very different and much, much cheaper to manufacture design that wasn't possible with the old engine. That is why they are pursuing a whole new design.
Point is, they didn't make an alternative to their IC cars because, well, it's suicide for them! Electric cars don't have a tenth of the parts a present-day car has. They don't break down. Theat means the entire service bay portion of the automakers' bottom line is almost GONE.
There may be SOME truth to this BUT the situation is only tenable while the superior technology is only marginally superior. (by superior I mean superior for the purposes of the consumer not in a diffuse "better for everyone" sense) Once the technology reaches a point where it is inarguably better for the consumer the situation will change. One (or all) of the car manufacturers will be driven by greed to betray their tacit agreement if they can produce a product significantly superior to those of his competitors. If greed isn't sufficient motivation FEAR that those competitors will be the ones doing the betraying will be the motiviation. Established companies like the big three auto makers have no particular interest in pursuing speculative research but once the research progresses to something more concrete their interest in it and willingness to develop it will pick up dramatically.
There will probably be a lot of false starts and abortive attempts at introducing any truly new, disruptive technology. What is interesting about this latest effort is that they are spending a significant amount of $$$ on it. Perhaps it is a sign that the technology is starting to reach that critical transition from "vapor" that looks good on paper to something real.
It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
;). There WILL be a lot of disruption but the economy as a whole is always better off when a new & better way to do things kills of an old and less efficient way to do the same task.
This simply isn't the case. If people are moving to a new technology it is because that new technology has advantages and those advantages include signiciant economic advantages. If the new technology is *really* so much better (something yet to be proven with Fuel Cells) everyone who uses it will be reaping economic advatages from doing so. The new companies that provide the new technology will grow as rapidly (or more rapidly) than their old technology competition shrinks. Many of the old technology companies will BE the new technology companies (IBM used to make typewriters - someday we may mention as just such an historical curiosity that Fuell Cell giant Chevron Energy Solutions used to be an oil company
Yes, fuel cells aren't "free" they are essentially storing energy that we are generating elsewhere. But the "elsewhere" is what makes it interesting. You are no longer restricted to using oil in millions of tiny internal combustion engines. You can use whatever is most efficient (Nuclear). You can use fuels that we have lying around in abundance (coal) without having to become involved in, and dependent on, the political quagmire of the middle east.
Obviously using coal (which we have in abundance) or using Nukes is probably not what most environmentalists have in mind when they sing the praises of Fuel Cells. Realistically though that is (at least partly) what such a move would mean. Still I think the environmental impact would be a net postive one. Probably significantly so.
The international political impact would also be postive - at least from the point-of-view of the USA. The middle east and all it's problems would shrink in significance. OPEC raises the price of oil? Who cares, other sources of energy pick up the slack. Regional wars in the Middle East? We are free to stay out of it with no ill effects to us no matter the outcome. We can let them sort it out themselves, mediate a dispute or support one side or another without the overriding concern of oil and "our national interest". True in some sense the Middle East would suffer. Their one meal ticket gone they will suffer from poverty & neglect as Africa currently does. But their miseries will be largely self-inflicted (as in Africa) not the result of our machiavelian intrigues in the service of cheap oil.
No they are NOT. Drug patent owners may be acting in an uncompassionate way but they are not OPRESSING anyone. There is no excersice of power, no one is being forced to do anything. Nobody is any worse off than they were before the patent was issued. The people who feel "oppressed" are complaining that someone else doesn't sacrifice to benefit them NOT that anyone is actively working to their detriment. Are you any less guilty than that drug company? Unless you are currently working as a volunteer in a non-profit drug research lab you have made a choice just as the patent holder has NOT to benefit the poor souls in the third world by giving them free drugs. Is your choice better than a for-profit pharmacutical company? The patent holders actions even with their mixed motives will have incredible benefits for many millions of people. Do your actions benefit more than a few hunderd at most? (I am assuming you volunteer the bulk of your time and money to charity since that is the moral standard you demand from other people)
and more over by cultural oppression (re musslims)
Again 9/10ths of the "cultural oppression" protested by conservative muslims is not that anyone is using POWER to FORCE their beliefs on them but the fact that others of their own people CHOOSE to adopt western culture - watch TV, eat at McDonalds, Drink Coke etc. Offering the fruits of your culture to someone else is not opression even if that culture is in fact inferior. A Talib using a GUN to FORCE you to make the choice he decides IS!
I believe that Kenya, Tanzania Turky, Eygipt etc... were all countries that adopted islam
Well if being given the choice between conversion and death or slavery is "adopting" you are right.
9/10 individuals who get credit are oppressed
The only think opressing them is their own stupidity. Being offered a choice even if it is a bad choice and is enticingly offered is not OPRESSION.
I would never get a loan for morral reasons
I aplaud your financial wisdom. But you prove my point - You are FREE to make a CHOICE. No one is using POWER to FORCE you to do anything. Try making the same choice to abstain from paying taxes
Let me clarify my position. In all these cases I am not arguing that western companies & governments are morally pure. They are often guilty of a lack of compassion, dishonesty, and they often encourage people to make poor choices. BUT BEING OFFERED A CHOICE IS NEVER OPPRESSION! Even if it is a bad choice, even if it is a bad choice offered seductively. Having that choice made for you usually IS opression. Being forbidden to own a TV, or eat a burger, or smoke a cigarette is in most cases oppression. Being offered the oppurtunity to do those things is not. YOU may not be happy with the choices your fellow citizens have made. You are probably RIGHT about the wisdom of those choices. BUT if you take it upon yourself to "protect" them from what you (rightly) percieve as their stupidity and act to make the choice for them - YOU are the oppressor!
Muslim doesn't represent terrorism to 2/3 of the world, only the US and the Jewish states (oh that includes the US i think).
And New Yorker stock analysts don't represent oppression to 2/3 of the world, only Marxists (speaking of REAL knock on the door in the middle of the night jackbooted, "workers paradise" gulag opression) and Klansmen/Nazi's (ditto) Ever notice how close either extreme really are to each other? Either way the state will MAKE you be what it wants you to be and all your problems are caused by "The international Banking Conspicary" not your own irresponsible decisions or the failings (corruption, oppression, etc) of your own government.
I won't argue that *some* banks and corporations aren't complicit in oppression around the world but it is governments that are DOING the oppression - gulags, "dissapearances", murders, genocides etc. The argument against those businessmen is NOT generally that the oppress anyone themselves but that they are willing to do business with or aid or seek the aid of those who are. But just as most Arabs are NOT terrorist most businessmen (and certainly most of their employees) are NOT oppresing anyone outside of the fantasies of losers like the KKK (& their islamic equivalent) or other sad little extremists that are upset they are not the ones that get to do the oppressing.
As for Arabs & Muslims not having a reputation outside of the US and the Jewish states (aside from Israel which other state(s) are jewish?) I think you could find a few Pakistani's Indians Filipinos Indonesians, Susanese, Kenyans & Tanzanians, Germans, Brits, Egyptians, Turks, Swedes, French, Austrians, Romanians, etc. etc. etc. that have fairly sound reasons to disagree with you. The point is not that Muslim==Terrorist but that SOME muslims are and the argument you made that because SOME businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty of oppression (or terrorism) that means ALL businessmen (or Muslims) are guilty and deserve to have a plane flown into their office (or drop bombs on their village). If your argument is collective guilt fine - but it is a two-way street and you have no basis if you adhere to it to protest even *intentional* civillian deaths.
BTW what would I want with a loan?
I don't know, I didn't suggets that you did. Just that not getting one, or having to pay it back if you DID get one is not being oppressed. Two contradictory reasons bankers are often accused of "oppressing" people.
If you don't want to die , don't work in a building or for a company that represents oppression to 2/3 of the world.
How this is different from saying "if you don't want to die don't profess belief in a religion that represents terrorism to 2/3 of the world"? Besides, the hijackers weren't exactly oppressed, they were a bunch of basically middle class or outright wealthy fascists who aren't against oppression as such, they're just frustrated that they aren't the ones doing it. I think a banker that wants to be repaid with interest on a loan YOU ASKED FOR is less oppressive than a Mullah who wants to subject everyone to sharia law relegating anyone who disagrees to dhimmitude.
Havn't you watched fight club latley?
Yes, I have. Interesting ENTERTAINMENT but a little unsatisfying (and shallow) as a political manifesto for anyone other than psychotics or dimwits that mistake it's psychotic rants for some kind of deep thought.
All true. But, it is important to note that the Marshal Plan took effect AFTER we beat the crap out of them. By some of the comments about how we should react to the current situation some peole seem to think it would have been a good idea to resond to Pearl Harbor with a Marshal Plan WITHOUT the intervening war.