They said fastest and most powerful, and by the SPEC benches they submitted, it is. They didn't say the G5 is faster than a Dell dual Xeon 3.0 running XP or a HP Pavilario running Red Hat because this type of apples to oranges comparison would require specific results and would throw off the simplicity of the advertisement.
No, you're missing the point. They're comparing apples to other personal computers. Why would they compare them to fruit? Of course they have more cycles than a mandarin.
PS I know I'm not funny. I just finished night shift.
I'm not absolutely sure - I think I read in a linux magazine that they had made some modifications to the kernel. If my memory serves me right it was minor changes only to suit the needs of the particular render farm that was being used, but they had also stripped out a lot of code/modules that were redundant.
As you say, the most effort goes into the custom software, and it may just have been that I've picked up the wrong end of the stick (the article was from a few years back).
The player wanting to use bullet time takes some speed, possibly mixed with cocaine, and plays as before. He will find that as he is now working quicker than everyone else, they are relatively slow, a la bullet time, but with none of the problems related to sync already mentioned.
All the Linux used in movies, I believe, is heavily modified. Although this applies more to the rendering software than the kernel, I am still pretty sure adjustments have been made to that too.
Surely anyone in the industry who is challenged just has to say "We're running a customised kernel, we have modified lots of code. Show us your code and we can tell you if we've replaced it or not".
They're not going to pay up if there's any chance they're not even using the SCO 'IP', are they? Couldn't this force an admission of code?
You mean the first square number, and another two numbers which are almost square numbers because they're only divisible by one integer other than one and themselves?
'Decades ago' in itself is an interesting phrase too. How long have computers been around? A few decades. How long have the 'real' precursors of modern computers been around? Maybe two, two and a half decades at a stretch. How long have modern coding techniques been used (i.e. large groups, collaborative work to any great extent, languages and systems to run them on which are comparable with what we are talking about)? Maybe 10 years? 15? And even then, the scale was very different. To be honest, I don't think any study done outside of the last decade, or even the last 7 years, has any correlation with today on a subject like this.
To suggest 'decades' doesn't fit in with history. 'Years', maybe. 'Decades' means he's exaggerating at best, not something to do in an article meant to be viewed as objective, wrong, or just plain talking out of his arse.
What if I write something, which is copywritten, and then I decide it's a pile of crap and I want to trash it? Then it's gone forever. Like this post, for instance, if I had written it down rather than put it on the internet. I should still have rights to destroy that work, as it's mine. No-one can force me to keep it available in any format they want. Which is essentially what you are suggesting.
It works fine for some stuff, and on the face of it it's a good idea, but the cost of maintaining this sort of information when only a minority of copywritten work is actually of any interest to anyone would be tremendous. Who would decide what was and what wasn't fit to keep?
Not at all. They will simply photograph the screen or use a screengrabber (which will be developed to bypass any prevention) and keep the record that way. The only people who want this stuff to destruct are the ones who aren't going tp show it to anyone anyway - if you are a whistleblower or using it to cover your own ass then the fact that it has been distributed as a self-destructing document just adds more weight to the claim that there's some lack of legitimacy about it!
And taking this a bit further, is the word 'spyware' not a made-up word, by the computer using community, to describe exactly this type of software? Was there even such a word before Gator? It's not like it was in the dictionary for years and now it's meaning has been twisted. It was coined to describe a product, and now that product wants to be disassociated with it.
These studies have been done loads of times. Similar ones include good looking people getting paid more. And I think they're probably accurate to some extent, though I think there are so many confounding variables that it would be hard to be sure.
If you think about it, it all makes sense. We're designed for Darwinism, we look up (probably, subconsciously) to our taller, better looking peers, the 'alpha males' of our pride, probably.
It is of course though a gross generalisation, but I for one welcome our towering square jawed overlords.
I think it does sound OK with eBay. This is a fairly broad statement which essentially tries to prevent people selling warez. It's to cover their own arses. The examples at least don't exclude the sale in question, though the first sentence certainly could stop it.
What they are trying to prevent is illegal transactions. The point though is that the seller is trying his damnedest to make this a legal but controversial lot. Aside from the actual technicalities of transferring the DRM rights which some people are debating, and proving not to have kept a copy or whatever - these are incidental to the actual point of the exercise. After all, I can sell a CD having burned a copy, there is no burden of proof on me to show I haven't! Anyway, I digress.
The policy is broad enough that they might pull the lot if it looks like it'll cause them a headache, but the underlying principles, as shown by the examples, are not to prevent a legal transfer.
I'd be interested to see their reaction if they were asked to stop it. I don't see any legal reason for them to though.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux, me hearties, Linux!
How about now?
No, you're missing the point. They're comparing apples to other personal computers. Why would they compare them to fruit? Of course they have more cycles than a mandarin.
PS I know I'm not funny. I just finished night shift.
As you say, the most effort goes into the custom software, and it may just have been that I've picked up the wrong end of the stick (the article was from a few years back).
Problem solved.
Plus the opinions might be different between those who use their software and those who view their success as stock market increases.
Surely anyone in the industry who is challenged just has to say "We're running a customised kernel, we have modified lots of code. Show us your code and we can tell you if we've replaced it or not".
They're not going to pay up if there's any chance they're not even using the SCO 'IP', are they? Couldn't this force an admission of code?
Leprechauns live on my hard drive controller, and spin it with all their tiny might.
They're like little green DJs when I use my RAID.
Do you even know what a square number is?
Repeat after me... 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11
To suggest 'decades' doesn't fit in with history. 'Years', maybe. 'Decades' means he's exaggerating at best, not something to do in an article meant to be viewed as objective, wrong, or just plain talking out of his arse.
Plus, there's the whole issue of vendor lock-in.
It works fine for some stuff, and on the face of it it's a good idea, but the cost of maintaining this sort of information when only a minority of copywritten work is actually of any interest to anyone would be tremendous. Who would decide what was and what wasn't fit to keep?
If you think about it, it all makes sense. We're designed for Darwinism, we look up (probably, subconsciously) to our taller, better looking peers, the 'alpha males' of our pride, probably.
It is of course though a gross generalisation, but I for one welcome our towering square jawed overlords.
Slow news-tastic.
More if you make a backup copy.
What they are trying to prevent is illegal transactions. The point though is that the seller is trying his damnedest to make this a legal but controversial lot. Aside from the actual technicalities of transferring the DRM rights which some people are debating, and proving not to have kept a copy or whatever - these are incidental to the actual point of the exercise. After all, I can sell a CD having burned a copy, there is no burden of proof on me to show I haven't! Anyway, I digress.
The policy is broad enough that they might pull the lot if it looks like it'll cause them a headache, but the underlying principles, as shown by the examples, are not to prevent a legal transfer.
I'd be interested to see their reaction if they were asked to stop it. I don't see any legal reason for them to though.