So you believe, despite people saying they wanted one because of the looks, they actually wanted one because of other reasons they didn't realize?
I think not. You'll need a lot more evidence than that to convince me (or anyone else, I'm sure).
No, I am saying those who bought a rev A iMac for looks were a small minority of rev A iMac purchasers. That the dozens that I personally met, that people selling Macs in retail, that people advocating Macs on usenet and other forums, considered price/performance relative to older Macs to be far more important. People often commented on the look but it was not a major factor for the vast majority.
"I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, 'did you mean this or that?', getting bogged down in minutia..."
What's wrong with someone getting into minutia? If it's a spec shouldn't it be perfectly clear, no ambiguity, so that different impementors with compliant code will naturally interoperate?
You standard for proof is very very low, in fact, perhaps even a "believer" in search of a conspiracy.
News reports on Sept. 11 indicated that flight crew found similar weapons (box cutters) stowed under cushions in seats on a plane that had never flown that day, and on which passengers had not yet boarded. This story was buried in the media and never aired again.
That often happen is incorrect reports. Do you think the networks are going to waste valuable air time telling you that the story they told you earlier today was complete BS?
That means that the government knows that none of this "increased security" at the airport could have prevented Sept. 11. So why are they lying to us?
They are not necessarily lying, you might want to consider that your powers of deduction may be a bit weak, or that you lack imagination. For example the box cutters may have been planted by the terrorists on a different day. The news reported that they flew the route numerous times to evaluate their plan and to become familiar faces. They may have pre-positioned a second set of weapons in case what they were carrying was confiscated on the day of the attack. Remember they could not reschedule their attack since it was coordinated with other groups. Seat cushions would be a good place to stash a small object, it is not an area that a cleanup crew would check. Only a very thorough search would have found the weapons, and those were not generally carried out without an expectation of a threat at that time. So increased security on 9/11 may not have helped, but if there had been increased security over a longer preceding time frame it may have very well helped. You conclusion fails.
Oh, yeah, and with the exception of the flight crew, the only people who can access an aircraft without the flight crew present are maintenance workers and law enforcement. This strongly suggests that either one of the flight crews, part of the maintenance crew, or a government law enforcement agency are responsible for Sept. 11th. None of those possibilities should sit well with the public.
As pointed out above the items could have been left there by the terrorists day(s) earlier. You conclusion fails, your evidence extraordinary only in the poor direction.
Here's another one. Sept. 12th 2001... the day after the attack... George W. Bush implies that Iraq is responsible. The news media completely dropped the ball, and even when he decided to attack Iraq, no one ever brought that up.
Uh, huh, no one except George Bush would have ever considered Iraq's potential involvement. It's not like we had fought a war with them, it's not like Saddam had made threats, had fired at American aircraft for years, had attempted to assassinate a former US president visiting the middle east, was known to support suicide bombers, etc. And certainly regular Americans would never look to Iraq after terrorism... oh wait, they did after Oklahoma City, until to our surprise we found out it was one of our own who did it. Suspecting Iraq, even verbalizing that you suspect Iraq, proves nothing. They rightfully belonged on a very short list of initial suspects. It would have been idiotic not to have them on the short list, it would be like finding a young woman murdered and not looking for the husband or boyfriend first. Your evidence fails, again.
Here's another one. As the GP mentioned, there are aircraft that are supposed to be able to be in the air over the Washington D.C. corridor to protect our nation's capital. I've read that they regularly drill to ensure that in the event of an emergency, they can be in the air in no more than 3 minutes. That obviously did not happen. This is standard policy in the event that any aircraft encroaches on White House airspace, and we've seen it occur on numerous occasions, both recently before and after Sept. 11. So in order to believe the official stor
Bullshit. They use whatever comes with the machine.
Not really. Microsoft bundled Windows with DOS to jump start it, prime the pump, get the network effect going,... However great a deal they gave vendors DOS was cheaper than DOS+Windows. If people did not want Windows they would not have paid the extra $30 or whatever it was. People wanted Windows at that price.
So, I can't really imagine how you could possibly get the impression iMac sold so well based on anything other than looks.
Mac user/dev since '83 (not a typo, was an Apple II dev so grandfathered into Mac dev program), knew dozens of *users*, ignoring programmers, who bought iMac rev As, I'm going on what they said. Similar stories from retailers. I also tracked the newgroups and forums at the time, similar info. It was price, a great deal on a Mac compared against previous Mac systems. The fact that it was not price competitive against PCs was irrelevant, these people wanted a Mac. It's also irrelevant how Apple marketed the iMac, those commercials were as much to resuscitate Apple's image as they were to sell iMacs. What the marketing people tell you is not reality. People may comment on the look but that is not why they put down their money, they wanted a relatively inexpensive system to run Mac OS. The small footprint was also a factor.
"It's Mac OS X that looks different and makes people buy Macs, not the case."
Yes, that's why the original iMacs, with the terribly crappy OS8, failed so miserably in the market-place.
You confuse Apple fanbois and marketing with actual consumers. Mac OS 8 may not be as shiny as X but many people preferred it to Windows. Even with the iMac rev A the advocates *of the day* talked about usability and price. It's look was retro 70s and while some folks liked the look it was *not* what was important to the vast majority of iMac rev A buyers. Things like cost and footprint we important, not bondi blue accents and curved cases.
Except for the Mini... oh and the iMac... wait, actually Apple doesn't sell any consumer desktop computers with a conventional look.
The Mini is the only exception and that has to do with size not style. You can't get much more conventional than an iMac, it looks like a flat panel monitor. That's a great thing, but it is not unconventional looking, it was not even a first from a major PC vendor. If I did not have a couple of good flat panels laying around I may have purchased an iMac rather than a Mini. The PowerMac, a fairly conventional looking tower. Sorry, aluminum and blue LED's don't change the fact that it's basically a rectangular box like most others. If anything it's closer to generic cases, simpler - more of a plain rectangular box, than more stylized cases from major PC vendors.
ah, I can't count the number of times I've seen people look at a mac, say "ohh pretty!" and go get one. Its true, I'm from a pretty rich suburb, but there's plenty of people who buy macs just cause they're hot.
Your statement is self contradictory, "pretty rich suburb" and "plenty of people". Apple's 3-4% marketshare proves otherwise.
Even among Apple users your statement is nonsense. Most people who buy Macs do so because of Mac OS X, not as a fashion statement. Again, Mini's are the exception regarding "looks", however it's not about "pretty" it's about size.
A lot of people (and companies) saw OS/2 as part of a naked attempt to force PCs into a proprietary hardware model
I think you are confusing the operating system OS/2 2.0 with the computer family PS/2. The PS/2 used the proprietary microchannel architecture. OS/2 ran ordinary PC clones.
They don't want Windows for its functionalities, familiarity or whatever.
No. OS/2 2.0 proved otherwise. More functional than Win 3.1 (Win95 wasn't out yet), more functional (it even ran Win 3.1 app), and it had big money behind it (IBM). People wanted Windows.
Dell is better off shutting down, and giving the money back to its shareholders....
[humor]
But where would 97%, errr - excuse me - Apple's been on a run - 96% of the public get their computers?
[/humor]
Hey, one lame joke deserves another.;-) For the record I own a Mac and a PC, and I know Dell does not supply all PCs. creative license.
More importantly, with Apple's recent nosedive in stock price, 30% in three months - 86.40 to 59.96 you probably don't want to advocate Macs and mention stocks in the same post. This nosedive occured as they were introducing some of their best computers ever. Apple's recent success has little to do with their computers, it's *iPod* that is making Apple. Without iPod they would probably be successful, have a slightly better image due to the Apple store and it's reminding the public they are still around and worth considering, but they would not be gathering all the attention they currently are. There may be no halo effect for computer purchases but their is a halo effect for the media. iPod gets the media to cover Apple's computers far more than they would have otherwise.
I'm an AMD user, but if the Core Duo outperforms Athlon and Alienware switches would users care? Would it be inconsistent? No on both. Alienware is about performance. They should not be AMD fanbois and they should sell whatever CPU is the fastest at the time.
Those machines look like crap. Dell is going to need more than that to compete with Apple.
I own a Mac and a PC, neither was purchased based on looks. I'm sure Apple marketing would like you to think otherwise, but your computer's look is nice but far from important to most people. Beside's Apple's look is pretty conventional, except for the Mini. It's Mac OS X that looks different and makes people buy Macs, not the case.
Which means you have to be a subscriber to the "coincidence theory", believing all the following are simply coincidences.
If you have a thousand random facts it is not hard to cherry pick a few of the randomly negative ones to invent a consipiracy theory to sell a book or a political agenda. Every years there will be a new book on what really happened on 9/11 just like there is a new Kennedy assassination book, a new FDR let Pearl Harbor happen book, etc.
It's also easy to misrepresent a fact to people unfamiliar with a subject. For example your quote "These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour." Damn suspicious unless you actually know something about air combat. You're finding it odd that Mach 2.4 aircraft only flew at Mach 0.9. We had Mach 2.2 aircraft during Vietnam. Know how many few that fast? Zero. Mach 2.0, Mach 1.8? Zero. One or two flew at Mach 1.6, they ran out of fuel over North Vietname, the pilots became prisoners. Most air combat took place up to Mach 0.9, cruising between points at less, it's all about fuel consumption.
I'd wager many of your other incriminating facts would fall to someone with some knowledge of the subject material as well.
Otherwise, how else can you explain BushCo (tm) still in business as usual?
Easy, a few more people thought he would do less damage than the other guy. Check back in a couple of decades and we'll see if they were correct. For now we can't tell, although the political extremists of both side would have you think otherwise. During the 1980s Reagan was about as hated and villified as Bush Jr. For the American and European left it was the end of the world, he was the anti-christ. Twenty years later we have a better perspective than when were in the midst of the turmoil and emotion.
Even MS employees know they can't sell their crap, they have to force it down peoples throats or it won't sell.
Nonsense, people want Windows. If Dell went 100% Linux tomorrow their sales would drop to near zero and people would buy Gateways, Compaqs, etc.
Also, Apple's Mac OS X has been a far better alternative for regular users than Linux for several years now yet nearly everyone sticks with Windows.
I own a Mac, my PC dual boots Windows and Linux, but I realize I am part of a very small minority. Most people don't want Mac OS X or Linux. That is reality, it may change over time but that it the state of things at the moment.
Core Duo and Core Solo are NOT "Core" arch chips. (SURPRISE!!)
They are basically Pentium M's.
No. There is merely an improved version of Core coming soon. A more accurate statement would have been the Pentium M was the first "Core" architecture chip. The architecture based performance improvements relative to the P4 appeared in the Pentium M. Now were are about to get refinements, not an entirely new design.
I felt like I was watching one of those "evil opposite universe" story lines from other sci fi. Or a self indulgent wierdness for the sake of wierdness episode like the twin peaks finale. At least in Peaks that wierdness was self consistent.
It could get worse. It could all be a dream of Adama's, his sleeping on the decision to let the election stand. Yeah, I know, Six shoots down that theory. I did like how she was responsible for their discovery. Although I would expect a search of any reasonable large "hiding spot".
Anyone who follows processor clock speeds will be aware that they suddenly stopped increasing a few years ago. While this is technically not a failure of Moore's law, at a minimum it does reflect some kind of failure to keep up with previous levels of progress.
Not really. Moore was commenting on the number of transistors and performance. Clock rate is a convenient but imperfect estimation of performance. If you use some metric that involves an actual measurement of work performed, say specmark, I'd wager that you would find no reason to be concerned.
That said, both Intel and AMD have been telling developers for at least a year or more that future performance increases are going to come more from multiple cores than from clock rate improvements, go forth and multithread your code.
Does the 965 product number refer to the number of watts drawn or the number of BTUs given off?
Neither, US Dollars flushed.;-)
FWIW the above is not a slam against Intel. I prefer my Intel or AMD CPUs in the mid to upper US$200s, my video cards in the mid to upper US$100s,... I don't give a rat's a** about frames-per-second pissing contests. What do I think about folks who buy $1000 CPUs and $500 video cards? I love them, they are my customers, god bless and protect them, and keep them coming back for more.
"Good think Intel invented the Core chips. Because you know, using 40% of the power of a Pentium 4 and doing 40% more work while clocking nearly twice as slow isn't a radical change or anything."
Maybe people are deciding you're just too much of a douche to put up with.
When pissing off the pentagon he was a hero to the folks here on slashdot. His traits of being honest and unpolitic were lauded as virtues, his not letting the Pentagon money keep him silent was considered exemplary.
I guess he should have remained silent and kept the pentagon money. The slashdot crowd is certainly not going to put their money where their mouths are.
Well OpenBSD was going to receive millions indirectly from the Pentagon, then Theo made public statements pissing off the Pentagon, then the project he would have benefited from got cancelled. He was a hero to the slashdot crowd that day, what a bunch of hypocrites.
GPL'd code may not be able to offer a tax break, it's discriminatory, it denies access to a large segment of taxpayers. BSD'd code would have a better chance of surviving legal challenges. More importantly, stay away from the government, you have no clue what a mess you could make of things by increasing government involvement. If a tax break were available for GPL'd code, and if it lost a legal challenge, then a corp may take the next step using this precedent to challenge any taxpayer funded projects being GPL'd. It's a small step from the former to the later. A judge might order all taxpayer funded GPL'd projects to be forked and relicensed with a free non-discriminatory license. If you bring the government in, you have no idea where things will end up.
I thought there were glorious financial advantages to open-source development? Seems odd that we need taxpayers to subsidize what is so obviously in people's economic self-interest in the first place.
FOSS has always been heavily subsidized. BSD, GNU (RMS's work at MIT?), all the academics doing research , etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So you believe, despite people saying they wanted one because of the looks, they actually wanted one because of other reasons they didn't realize? I think not. You'll need a lot more evidence than that to convince me (or anyone else, I'm sure).
No, I am saying those who bought a rev A iMac for looks were a small minority of rev A iMac purchasers. That the dozens that I personally met, that people selling Macs in retail, that people advocating Macs on usenet and other forums, considered price/performance relative to older Macs to be far more important. People often commented on the look but it was not a major factor for the vast majority.
"I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, 'did you mean this or that?', getting bogged down in minutia ..."
What's wrong with someone getting into minutia? If it's a spec shouldn't it be perfectly clear, no ambiguity, so that different impementors with compliant code will naturally interoperate?
Here's a little bit of extraordinary proof.
... oh wait, they did after Oklahoma City, until to our surprise we found out it was one of our own who did it. Suspecting Iraq, even verbalizing that you suspect Iraq, proves nothing. They rightfully belonged on a very short list of initial suspects. It would have been idiotic not to have them on the short list, it would be like finding a young woman murdered and not looking for the husband or boyfriend first. Your evidence fails, again.
You standard for proof is very very low, in fact, perhaps even a "believer" in search of a conspiracy.
News reports on Sept. 11 indicated that flight crew found similar weapons (box cutters) stowed under cushions in seats on a plane that had never flown that day, and on which passengers had not yet boarded. This story was buried in the media and never aired again.
That often happen is incorrect reports. Do you think the networks are going to waste valuable air time telling you that the story they told you earlier today was complete BS?
That means that the government knows that none of this "increased security" at the airport could have prevented Sept. 11. So why are they lying to us?
They are not necessarily lying, you might want to consider that your powers of deduction may be a bit weak, or that you lack imagination. For example the box cutters may have been planted by the terrorists on a different day. The news reported that they flew the route numerous times to evaluate their plan and to become familiar faces. They may have pre-positioned a second set of weapons in case what they were carrying was confiscated on the day of the attack. Remember they could not reschedule their attack since it was coordinated with other groups. Seat cushions would be a good place to stash a small object, it is not an area that a cleanup crew would check. Only a very thorough search would have found the weapons, and those were not generally carried out without an expectation of a threat at that time. So increased security on 9/11 may not have helped, but if there had been increased security over a longer preceding time frame it may have very well helped. You conclusion fails.
Oh, yeah, and with the exception of the flight crew, the only people who can access an aircraft without the flight crew present are maintenance workers and law enforcement. This strongly suggests that either one of the flight crews, part of the maintenance crew, or a government law enforcement agency are responsible for Sept. 11th. None of those possibilities should sit well with the public.
As pointed out above the items could have been left there by the terrorists day(s) earlier. You conclusion fails, your evidence extraordinary only in the poor direction.
Here's another one. Sept. 12th 2001... the day after the attack... George W. Bush implies that Iraq is responsible. The news media completely dropped the ball, and even when he decided to attack Iraq, no one ever brought that up.
Uh, huh, no one except George Bush would have ever considered Iraq's potential involvement. It's not like we had fought a war with them, it's not like Saddam had made threats, had fired at American aircraft for years, had attempted to assassinate a former US president visiting the middle east, was known to support suicide bombers, etc. And certainly regular Americans would never look to Iraq after terrorism
Here's another one. As the GP mentioned, there are aircraft that are supposed to be able to be in the air over the Washington D.C. corridor to protect our nation's capital. I've read that they regularly drill to ensure that in the event of an emergency, they can be in the air in no more than 3 minutes. That obviously did not happen. This is standard policy in the event that any aircraft encroaches on White House airspace, and we've seen it occur on numerous occasions, both recently before and after Sept. 11. So in order to believe the official stor
Bullshit. They use whatever comes with the machine.
... However great a deal they gave vendors DOS was cheaper than DOS+Windows. If people did not want Windows they would not have paid the extra $30 or whatever it was. People wanted Windows at that price.
Not really. Microsoft bundled Windows with DOS to jump start it, prime the pump, get the network effect going,
So, I can't really imagine how you could possibly get the impression iMac sold so well based on anything other than looks.
Mac user/dev since '83 (not a typo, was an Apple II dev so grandfathered into Mac dev program), knew dozens of *users*, ignoring programmers, who bought iMac rev As, I'm going on what they said. Similar stories from retailers. I also tracked the newgroups and forums at the time, similar info. It was price, a great deal on a Mac compared against previous Mac systems. The fact that it was not price competitive against PCs was irrelevant, these people wanted a Mac. It's also irrelevant how Apple marketed the iMac, those commercials were as much to resuscitate Apple's image as they were to sell iMacs. What the marketing people tell you is not reality. People may comment on the look but that is not why they put down their money, they wanted a relatively inexpensive system to run Mac OS. The small footprint was also a factor.
"It's Mac OS X that looks different and makes people buy Macs, not the case."
Yes, that's why the original iMacs, with the terribly crappy OS8, failed so miserably in the market-place.
You confuse Apple fanbois and marketing with actual consumers. Mac OS 8 may not be as shiny as X but many people preferred it to Windows. Even with the iMac rev A the advocates *of the day* talked about usability and price. It's look was retro 70s and while some folks liked the look it was *not* what was important to the vast majority of iMac rev A buyers. Things like cost and footprint we important, not bondi blue accents and curved cases.
Except for the Mini... oh and the iMac... wait, actually Apple doesn't sell any consumer desktop computers with a conventional look.
The Mini is the only exception and that has to do with size not style. You can't get much more conventional than an iMac, it looks like a flat panel monitor. That's a great thing, but it is not unconventional looking, it was not even a first from a major PC vendor. If I did not have a couple of good flat panels laying around I may have purchased an iMac rather than a Mini. The PowerMac, a fairly conventional looking tower. Sorry, aluminum and blue LED's don't change the fact that it's basically a rectangular box like most others. If anything it's closer to generic cases, simpler - more of a plain rectangular box, than more stylized cases from major PC vendors.
ah, I can't count the number of times I've seen people look at a mac, say "ohh pretty!" and go get one. Its true, I'm from a pretty rich suburb, but there's plenty of people who buy macs just cause they're hot.
Your statement is self contradictory, "pretty rich suburb" and "plenty of people". Apple's 3-4% marketshare proves otherwise.
Even among Apple users your statement is nonsense. Most people who buy Macs do so because of Mac OS X, not as a fashion statement. Again, Mini's are the exception regarding "looks", however it's not about "pretty" it's about size.
A lot of people (and companies) saw OS/2 as part of a naked attempt to force PCs into a proprietary hardware model
I think you are confusing the operating system OS/2 2.0 with the computer family PS/2. The PS/2 used the proprietary microchannel architecture. OS/2 ran ordinary PC clones.
They don't want Windows for its functionalities, familiarity or whatever.
No. OS/2 2.0 proved otherwise. More functional than Win 3.1 (Win95 wasn't out yet), more functional (it even ran Win 3.1 app), and it had big money behind it (IBM). People wanted Windows.
Dell is better off shutting down, and giving the money back to its shareholders....
;-) For the record I own a Mac and a PC, and I know Dell does not supply all PCs. creative license.
[humor]
But where would 97%, errr - excuse me - Apple's been on a run - 96% of the public get their computers?
[/humor]
Hey, one lame joke deserves another.
More importantly, with Apple's recent nosedive in stock price, 30% in three months - 86.40 to 59.96 you probably don't want to advocate Macs and mention stocks in the same post. This nosedive occured as they were introducing some of their best computers ever. Apple's recent success has little to do with their computers, it's *iPod* that is making Apple. Without iPod they would probably be successful, have a slightly better image due to the Apple store and it's reminding the public they are still around and worth considering, but they would not be gathering all the attention they currently are. There may be no halo effect for computer purchases but their is a halo effect for the media. iPod gets the media to cover Apple's computers far more than they would have otherwise.
I'm an AMD user, but if the Core Duo outperforms Athlon and Alienware switches would users care? Would it be inconsistent? No on both. Alienware is about performance. They should not be AMD fanbois and they should sell whatever CPU is the fastest at the time.
Those machines look like crap. Dell is going to need more than that to compete with Apple.
I own a Mac and a PC, neither was purchased based on looks. I'm sure Apple marketing would like you to think otherwise, but your computer's look is nice but far from important to most people. Beside's Apple's look is pretty conventional, except for the Mini. It's Mac OS X that looks different and makes people buy Macs, not the case.
Which means you have to be a subscriber to the "coincidence theory", believing all the following are simply coincidences.
If you have a thousand random facts it is not hard to cherry pick a few of the randomly negative ones to invent a consipiracy theory to sell a book or a political agenda. Every years there will be a new book on what really happened on 9/11 just like there is a new Kennedy assassination book, a new FDR let Pearl Harbor happen book, etc.
It's also easy to misrepresent a fact to people unfamiliar with a subject. For example your quote "These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour." Damn suspicious unless you actually know something about air combat. You're finding it odd that Mach 2.4 aircraft only flew at Mach 0.9. We had Mach 2.2 aircraft during Vietnam. Know how many few that fast? Zero. Mach 2.0, Mach 1.8? Zero. One or two flew at Mach 1.6, they ran out of fuel over North Vietname, the pilots became prisoners. Most air combat took place up to Mach 0.9, cruising between points at less, it's all about fuel consumption.
I'd wager many of your other incriminating facts would fall to someone with some knowledge of the subject material as well.
Otherwise, how else can you explain BushCo (tm) still in business as usual?
Easy, a few more people thought he would do less damage than the other guy. Check back in a couple of decades and we'll see if they were correct. For now we can't tell, although the political extremists of both side would have you think otherwise. During the 1980s Reagan was about as hated and villified as Bush Jr. For the American and European left it was the end of the world, he was the anti-christ. Twenty years later we have a better perspective than when were in the midst of the turmoil and emotion.
Even MS employees know they can't sell their crap, they have to force it down peoples throats or it won't sell.
Nonsense, people want Windows. If Dell went 100% Linux tomorrow their sales would drop to near zero and people would buy Gateways, Compaqs, etc.
Also, Apple's Mac OS X has been a far better alternative for regular users than Linux for several years now yet nearly everyone sticks with Windows.
I own a Mac, my PC dual boots Windows and Linux, but I realize I am part of a very small minority. Most people don't want Mac OS X or Linux. That is reality, it may change over time but that it the state of things at the moment.
Core Duo and Core Solo are NOT "Core" arch chips. (SURPRISE!!) They are basically Pentium M's.
No. There is merely an improved version of Core coming soon. A more accurate statement would have been the Pentium M was the first "Core" architecture chip. The architecture based performance improvements relative to the P4 appeared in the Pentium M. Now were are about to get refinements, not an entirely new design.
I felt like I was watching one of those "evil opposite universe" story lines from other sci fi. Or a self indulgent wierdness for the sake of wierdness episode like the twin peaks finale. At least in Peaks that wierdness was self consistent.
It could get worse. It could all be a dream of Adama's, his sleeping on the decision to let the election stand. Yeah, I know, Six shoots down that theory. I did like how she was responsible for their discovery. Although I would expect a search of any reasonable large "hiding spot".
Anyone who follows processor clock speeds will be aware that they suddenly stopped increasing a few years ago. While this is technically not a failure of Moore's law, at a minimum it does reflect some kind of failure to keep up with previous levels of progress.
Not really. Moore was commenting on the number of transistors and performance. Clock rate is a convenient but imperfect estimation of performance. If you use some metric that involves an actual measurement of work performed, say specmark, I'd wager that you would find no reason to be concerned.
That said, both Intel and AMD have been telling developers for at least a year or more that future performance increases are going to come more from multiple cores than from clock rate improvements, go forth and multithread your code.
Does the 965 product number refer to the number of watts drawn or the number of BTUs given off?
;-)
... I don't give a rat's a** about frames-per-second pissing contests. What do I think about folks who buy $1000 CPUs and $500 video cards? I love them, they are my customers, god bless and protect them, and keep them coming back for more.
Neither, US Dollars flushed.
FWIW the above is not a slam against Intel. I prefer my Intel or AMD CPUs in the mid to upper US$200s, my video cards in the mid to upper US$100s,
"Good think Intel invented the Core chips. Because you know, using 40% of the power of a Pentium 4 and doing 40% more work while clocking nearly twice as slow isn't a radical change or anything."
;-)
Cool! Where can I buy one?
http://store.apple.com/
Click on Mac mini, iMac, or MacBook Pro.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Maybe people are deciding you're just too much of a douche to put up with.
p a.html
When pissing off the pentagon he was a hero to the folks here on slashdot. His traits of being honest and unpolitic were lauded as virtues, his not letting the Pentagon money keep him silent was considered exemplary.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2003/04/18/dar
I guess he should have remained silent and kept the pentagon money. The slashdot crowd is certainly not going to put their money where their mouths are.
I don't see how that's a real problem.
Well OpenBSD was going to receive millions indirectly from the Pentagon, then Theo made public statements pissing off the Pentagon, then the project he would have benefited from got cancelled. He was a hero to the slashdot crowd that day, what a bunch of hypocrites.
GPL'd code may not be able to offer a tax break, it's discriminatory, it denies access to a large segment of taxpayers. BSD'd code would have a better chance of surviving legal challenges. More importantly, stay away from the government, you have no clue what a mess you could make of things by increasing government involvement. If a tax break were available for GPL'd code, and if it lost a legal challenge, then a corp may take the next step using this precedent to challenge any taxpayer funded projects being GPL'd. It's a small step from the former to the later. A judge might order all taxpayer funded GPL'd projects to be forked and relicensed with a free non-discriminatory license. If you bring the government in, you have no idea where things will end up.
I thought there were glorious financial advantages to open-source development? Seems odd that we need taxpayers to subsidize what is so obviously in people's economic self-interest in the first place.
FOSS has always been heavily subsidized. BSD, GNU (RMS's work at MIT?), all the academics doing research , etc.