Don't forget that Intel actually manufactures some AXP CPU's! Digital sold their Alpha Fab plants. I think API makes them as well as Samsung(?) and Intel.
Right...If you want the compiler, though, you need a seperate product. But why run NT on the Alpha when there is Linux instead? And with Compaq having released a GEM(Alpha's compiler back-end) based compiler for Linux, it should be really fast!
Yes, and it works quite nicely (it's quite brilliant really, it will profile an application and actually convert some of the code to native)...unfortunately Compaq canceled WinNT/Alpha support. The Alpha is strictly a *Nix box now (Linux for low end, Tru64 for high end).
Oh...and I work(ed) for Compaq on the Visual C++ for Alpha/NT product(I'm leaving at the end of the month, for obvious reasons).
I would disagree. DVD is the video equivalent of the CD. The reason LaserDisc never went mainstream is because they were huge and inconvienient. DVD's are small, easy, and packed with added value.
I never said the find dialog wasn't powerful. What I said is that Mackido has made a statement which is laugably incorrect: The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters
That's wrong...and after looking through the rest of the site, it is rife with technical inaccuracies and half truths. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with the Mac, but that site is FUD, pure and simple. And I won't put up with FUD from the MS, Linux, or Mac camps.
I looked at this site...seems pretty hokey to me, check out this page. I'll quote from it:
Windows and Unix still have the Command Line Interface hiding behind their very thin veneers of a GUI, and so they want to pretend that Mac computers are less powerful because they don't have the same thing. The flaw in their logic is that Macs do, they just don't know it.
The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters - files with "x" in the name, created after a certain date, of a certain type. The Mac's find dialog has this behavior (and more), is easier to work with than a CLI, and in many ways much more powerful. So I consider the find function the primary CLI.
so aparently, the Mac has a CLI because it has a find dialog!?
I'm sorry, I realize the Mac isn't a bad machine. It's quite good for certain purposes (the PPC is a good chip!). But that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Since when has the primary function of a command line interface been to find files? (shaking my head). That pretty much blows the credibility of that site out of the water.
I really doubt this is worth my energy, but I'll point out a couple problems with your response.
1. You are picking and chosing what you respond to. You ignore points that I can only assume you can't answer.
2. You tell me that "there are only so many feminist leaders". You seem to be implying, from the quote you respond to, that there are only 3 feminist leaders. This leads me to the conclusion that you may really believe in some feminist conspiricy. C'mon, do you think the left is really that organized? We can't even get a real liberal elected into office, let alone organize a global conspiricy.
2. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: Your quotes are not only out of context, but from dubious sources.
3. You seem to imply that, because Phyllis Schlafly doesn't condone the extermination of men, her arguements are rational.
4. You ignore my statement that I have no idea who Andrea Dworkin is. You imply that I am defending her statements when I am not. Indeed, I have no basis to defend her statements.
5. You either haveno sense of humor, or (as I'm inclined to believe) you're putting me on.
Again, this is either a put on, or not worth my effort any more. So that's it from me.
Why are over half of your "typical feminist quotes" from the same person? Are there only 3 "typical feminists" in the country.
Oh, and I can play your game too: "It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea, 1977
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. To be honest, I have no idea who Andrea Dworkin is, but it took me all of five minutes to find something supporting a view I hold. Hell, I could probably quote Phyllis Shlafly in order to support my view. I hope this sheds some light on the folly of using out of context quotes to support your view.
--GnrcMan--
You're the "80 million dead" fellow, aren't you?
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that you are nothing more than a spammer, right? You post incoherent, off-topic posts every chance you get. And you don't even have the decency to tell us who you are! Do you think you are actually convincing anyone?
At least come up with some better arguements. Your tired act is getting old.
Liberalism as an ideology is devoted to the destruction of Christianity, as one of its primary goals. Its other goals are the destruction of capitalism, destruction of the family, etc. If that's not "sick hate", I'd really love to know what is.
Shit! They've found us out. I've got to call The Leader.
You're talking about the fruitcake who's always ranting on and foaming at the mouth about 80 million dead, right? Yeah, I noticed some similarities too.
Yes, but the claims do not apply to all of distributed computing. They specifically describe processing initiated by the server. AFAIK, most of the distributed computing projects out there are initiated by the client. It's an important distinction. Besides, yet another moronic patent is old news. To me, the idea of an ISP requiring subscribers to process data is more intriquing. Just how much mileage can you get out of, "Wow, that's a dumb obvious patent that has been done before". I think that whole angle is running out of steam. We all know that the patent system is broken right now and if I spent an hour looking through the database, I'd be able to find hundreds of examples to prove it.
I agree completely. I'm actually kind of irritated at Roblimo. My original submission was titled, "A scary patent on stealing CPU cycles".
Apparently he decided to play patent interpeter and make the (incorrect) assumption that this patented all of distributed computing. My comment explains what I believe to be the real discussion point. And I say discussion point because, hey, Intel hasn't made any indication that they will ever even do anything with this patent. There are lots of patents on things that never even get implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that Intel actually manufactures some AXP CPU's! Digital sold their Alpha Fab plants. I think API makes them as well as Samsung(?) and Intel.
--GnrcMan--
MS didn't kill NT on Alpha, Compaq did. Turns out nobody wanted to run a 32bit OS on 64 bit hardware. :)
--GnrcMan--
The biggest advantage of 64 bit is the ability to operate on Quadwords (64 bits).
--GnrcMan--
Right...If you want the compiler, though, you need a seperate product. But why run NT on the Alpha when there is Linux instead? And with Compaq having released a GEM(Alpha's compiler back-end) based compiler for Linux, it should be really fast!
--GnrcMan--
Sorry, not anymore...I should know, I worked on it!
--GnrcMan--
Yes, and it works quite nicely (it's quite brilliant really, it will profile an application and actually convert some of the code to native)...unfortunately Compaq canceled WinNT/Alpha support. The Alpha is strictly a *Nix box now (Linux for low end, Tru64 for high end).
Oh...and I work(ed) for Compaq on the Visual C++ for Alpha/NT product(I'm leaving at the end of the month, for obvious reasons).
--GnrcMan--
http://www.sarahandcasey.com/decss
--GnrcMan--
i'd be interested in talking to anyone who had a problem with it and couldn't get around it within a day.
;)
No you wouldn't...they'd be dumb as a rock.
--GnrcMan--
I would disagree. DVD is the video equivalent of the CD. The reason LaserDisc never went mainstream is because they were huge and inconvienient. DVD's are small, easy, and packed with added value.
--GnrcMan--
I never said the find dialog wasn't powerful. What I said is that Mackido has made a statement which is laugably incorrect: The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters
That's wrong...and after looking through the rest of the site, it is rife with technical inaccuracies and half truths. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with the Mac, but that site is FUD, pure and simple. And I won't put up with FUD from the MS, Linux, or Mac camps.
--GnrcMan--
What this is really about is good old civil disobedience. My favorate form of protest!
--GnrcMan--
I looked at this site...seems pretty hokey to me, check out this page. I'll quote from it:
Windows and Unix still have the Command Line Interface hiding behind their very thin veneers of a GUI, and so they want to pretend that Mac computers are less powerful because they don't have the same thing. The flaw in their logic is that Macs do, they just don't know it.
The primary CLI function is to find files based on typed in parameters - files with "x" in the name, created after a certain date, of a certain type. The Mac's find dialog has this behavior (and more), is easier to work with than a CLI, and in many ways much more powerful. So I consider the find function the primary CLI.
so aparently, the Mac has a CLI because it has a find dialog!?
I'm sorry, I realize the Mac isn't a bad machine. It's quite good for certain purposes (the PPC is a good chip!). But that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Since when has the primary function of a command line interface been to find files? (shaking my head). That pretty much blows the credibility of that site out of the water.
--GnrcMan--
Nobody's pirating DVD's...the damn things are 5-6Gigs.
--GnrcMan--
And just what the hell good is a DVD copy of a VHS cassette?!
--GnrcMan--
(I _REALLY_ hope he was misquoted..)
Well you certainly misquoted the article. You shouldn't put quotes around your interpretation of a statement...it's very nearly libelous.
--GnrcMan--
Radio-Electronics (now known as Electronics Now) published an article on building one many years ago. Check the archives of your local library.
--GnrcMan--
I really doubt this is worth my energy, but I'll point out a couple problems with your response.
1. You are picking and chosing what you respond to. You ignore points that I can only assume you can't answer.
2. You tell me that "there are only so many feminist leaders". You seem to be implying, from the quote you respond to, that there are only 3 feminist leaders. This leads me to the conclusion that you may really believe in some feminist conspiricy. C'mon, do you think the left is really that organized? We can't even get a real liberal elected into office, let alone organize a global conspiricy.
2. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: Your quotes are not only out of context, but from dubious sources.
3. You seem to imply that, because Phyllis Schlafly doesn't condone the extermination of men, her arguements are rational.
4. You ignore my statement that I have no idea who Andrea Dworkin is. You imply that I am defending her statements when I am not. Indeed, I have no basis to defend her statements.
5. You either haveno sense of humor, or (as I'm inclined to believe) you're putting me on.
Again, this is either a put on, or not worth my effort any more. So that's it from me.
--GnrcMan--
Fine...your troll worked.
Let's take a look at some typical feminist quotes
Why are over half of your "typical feminist quotes" from the same person? Are there only 3 "typical feminists" in the country.
Oh, and I can play your game too:
"It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because
genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea, 1977
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. To be honest, I have no idea who Andrea Dworkin is, but it took me all of five minutes to find something supporting a view I hold. Hell, I could probably quote Phyllis Shlafly in order to support my view.
I hope this sheds some light on the folly of using out of context quotes to support your view.
--GnrcMan--
You do realize that you are nothing more than a spammer, right? You post incoherent, off-topic posts every chance you get. And you don't even have the decency to tell us who you are! Do you think you are actually convincing anyone?
At least come up with some better arguements. Your tired act is getting old.
--GnrcMan--
Liberalism as an ideology is devoted to the destruction of Christianity, as one of its primary goals. Its other goals are the destruction of capitalism, destruction of the family, etc. If that's not "sick hate", I'd really love to know what is.
Shit! They've found us out. I've got to call The Leader.
--GnrcMan--
You're talking about the fruitcake who's always ranting on and foaming at the mouth about 80 million dead, right? Yeah, I noticed some similarities too.
--GnrcMan--
Yes, but the claims do not apply to all of distributed computing. They specifically describe processing initiated by the server. AFAIK, most of the distributed computing projects out there are initiated by the client. It's an important distinction.
Besides, yet another moronic patent is old news. To me, the idea of an ISP requiring subscribers to process data is more intriquing. Just how much mileage can you get out of, "Wow, that's a dumb obvious patent that has been done before". I think that whole angle is running out of steam. We all know that the patent system is broken right now and if I spent an hour looking through the database, I'd be able to find hundreds of examples to prove it.
--GnrcMan--
I agree completely. I'm actually kind of irritated at Roblimo. My original submission was titled, "A scary patent on stealing CPU cycles".
Apparently he decided to play patent interpeter and make the (incorrect) assumption that this patented all of distributed computing. My comment explains what I believe to be the real discussion point. And I say discussion point because, hey, Intel hasn't made any indication that they will ever even do anything with this patent. There are lots of patents on things that never even get implemented.
--GnrcMan--
I realize you're joking but, just to be clear, you can't patent a business practice (i.e. charging money for something.)
--GnrcMan--
should have previewed
--GnrcMan--