Seriously, though, management does take work. It takes different skills, and technology-types don't always appreciate those skills. Sure, there are bad managers, but there are bad tech guys, what's your point?
I'm sure they're highly skilled at generating MBAs and marketing people, too. >>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised. Culturally, engineers and doctors are held in much higher regard than and MBA or marketing person would be. As a result, the top Indian schools are good at training people in technical fields, but not so good at training liberal arts people. The same would would be true for a highly technology oriented school in the U.S.
Somebody mod this post up, if only for number 3. It seems to me that most Americans have a significantly skewed perspective on countries outside the USA, and a skewed perspective on where these people are coming from. Since I originally hail from Bangladesh (next to India) I can vouch for the fact that there is a large educated class (not so large as in the US, but significant) that can take advantage of things like the H1-B. H1-B's aren't going to be people at the very top (those would just emigrate outright) and they aren't going to be people at the very bottom (because they can't afford to get the skills and they can't afford to emigrate). In reality, they're likely to be people in what we'd consider the "professional" middle class.
You know, there is an element of thruth to this. I was just thinking the other day: I think I want an iPod (about $400). Then I though, man I could donate that instead and feed a dozen people. Bothered the hell out of me. Still does. I decided that the world sucks and I just gotta live my life, so I got the iPod. But a dozen people...man, I hate myself that I can justify that...
How many of you are doing 3D rendering, professional Photoshop work, or heavy duty web/database serving from your laptop? >>>>>>>>. I've got 2 out of 3 (well, not *pro* Photoshop work, but amatuar GIMPing:) I also do lots of compiling and engineering modeling, so that's 4 out of 3. I need to use a laptop because a) I'm in a dorm and I need the mobility, b) you can't get 133dpi LCDs (awesome for reading text) on desktops, and c) I got to LAN parties and it's uber-cool when you can just put our computer in a backpack and run while all your friends are lugging 19" CRTs around.
many of the zealots here think they have the "right" to the fruits of any programmer or company's labor, simply because it's trivial to make copies of the original work. >>>>>>> Is it really such a zealot-ous concept? I mean science has been operating the same way for hundreds of years (you base your own work upon all the discoveries of others), and it's worked amazingly well. I'd say that this new paradigm, that companies have absolute power over their creations, is the one that is new and unusual.
Unfortunately, the new.NET style left all the corner pixels off all the widgets. I like it a lot, but the lack of corner pixels (especially since I'm on a high-res display and the gaps are *tiny*) is really distracting.
Does he Find Windows easier to Use because its his default DE? >>>>> The second one. I use KDE, and I find XP to be confusing as hell. Especially since they changed everything around since Win2k. It's a *she* by the way.
You're comparing a dual processor machine to a single processor machine. Dual processor machines are known for being much more responsive, regardless of clock speed.
I really wish people would understand clock speed has nothing to do with how fast a processor can perform a given task. >>>>>>>> Actually, it has a great deal to do with how fast a processor can perform a given task.
Performance = Efficiency * Clock_Speed
It's linear in both terms. Doubling clock-speed is just as good as doubling efficiency. However, doubling efficiency is much, much, much, harder to do than doubling clock speed. As for a 1GHz G4 being 2x faster, yea right. It's not even *theoretically* 2x faster. If you take a look at real benchmarks (try the ArsTechnica thread) you'll see that it's rarely better than 20 or 30% faster at a give clock speed.
I live in a college dorm and listen to MP3s through good headphones but through a *laptop* soundcard. The audio output is so bad that even at moderate volume you get a whole lot of noise. Even then, a 128 kbps MP3 is blatently obvious. At 192 kbps, the difference is small enough that you have to be listening for it, but 128 is definately not enough. Besides, the original point of this thread was that a 192-kbps MP3 is nowhere near CD quality. The listening environment isn't at issue here.
CHeap your audio signal. 128kbps is so blatently bad that even the average person can quickly pick up on it. I suppose it doesn't matter if you listen to rock, but try some delicate female vocals (which is what I listen to most often) or light flutes and strings, and you'll definately notice the difference.
Mysteriously enough, most audiophiles hear what they want to hear. >>>>>>>> Perhaps. But I'd also argue that most audiophiles are far more sensitive to audio quality than the average person. If they weren't sensitive to audio, they wouldn't care about it so much.
SACD/DVD-A are no better in theory than CD >>>>>>>>> Bad example. Lot's of people can hear the improvement in SACD players. Hell, go demo one yourself.
Re:32 compatibility mode vs. true 64 bit apps...
on
AMD Opteron Due In April
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They really shouldn't have double the memory foot-print. Code size increases only slightly (from an average of 3.4 bytes per instruction to 3.8 bytes per instruction). Integer size remains the same. Only long integers and pointers double in size. You'd probably get more of a noticible growth by compiling with GCC with inlining enabled.
It also assumes that all of the source code is '64-bit clean', although that is likely not going to be much of a problem. >>>>>>>>> Most Linux code is 64-bit clean. The initial Alpha port of Gentoo was done by one guy in *two days* It took more than half a decade for Microsoft to go from 16-bit to 32-bit.
You miss a very simple point here: The benifets of 64 bit outweigh the costs. Making a 64-bit machine is not expensive at all. Most parts of the system are already 64-bit or wider. The only thing is the increase the widths of the ALUs, AGUs, and address lines. It's almost trivial, to the point where you see even cheap game machines with 4MB of RAM (the N64) and 16MB PDAs (Casio EM-500) having 64-bit CPUs. In fact, if it weren't for x86 architectural restrictions, we'd already be using 64-bit CPUs. Now the benifets to 64-bit are significant. You get slightly better performance for certain applications. You get to address more than 2GB (the practical limit for a 4GB virtual address space) of physical memory, which will be a limit within the next couple of years. You get to eliminate lots of stupid code inside the OS that has to manage with not being able to map all of physical memory at the same time. You get to do nice stuff like prelink all binaries (important for stuff like KDE) without worrying about running out of address space. So the question isn't: why 64-bit. It's: why not?
It's even more funny than that. It's a 48-bit virtual address mapping to a 40-bit physical address. The remaining 16-bits of the virtual address are reserved for future use, so all pointers have to be 64 bit, but you can only map stuff to the first 48-bits. This is done to keep the page table to a sane number of levels. Even with the 48-bit virtual address, it already uses a 4 level page table, because they stick with the stupid 4KB page size.
You know, 4.7GB is probably a bit too much storage for a single disc. I'd really like to see one of those 1.5 GB mini-cds put to use in a small portable. It would be competition for the iPod, anyway, and much needed one at that.
virtually indistinguishable from the source CDs (even to audiophiles), at an average bitrate of around 192kbps >>>>>>>> I don't know about that. With my Sony D66's (not quite audiophile quality, but very nice) I can hear a significant difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD. At 256 kbps, I really have to be looking for it, so that's what I encode at. Through my speakers (Klipsch 4.1's, again not audiophile quality, but nice as far as PC speakers go) I can't really tell the difference at 192 kbps unless it's a type of song that MP3 just doesn't encode well. I think the main thing here is that: a) headphones will reveal quality differences much more than comparably priced speakers, and b) PC audio systems suck enough that a good pair of speakers aren't the bottleneck when comparing compression standards. If you go to a pair of really accurate headphones (like the in-ear ER-4's) even non-audiophiles will hear the difference. And at less than $300, it's not like we're talking about some $5000 home theater system here.
South Africa has a large white population. They were in control of the country until only recently, and they still have many of the higher level jobs and positions.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, though, management does take work. It takes different skills, and technology-types don't always appreciate those skills. Sure, there are bad managers, but there are bad tech guys, what's your point?
We could be here on a green card, but I'm pretty sure that a spouse comes along on one of those too...
I'm sure they're highly skilled at generating MBAs and marketing people, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
You'd be surprised. Culturally, engineers and doctors are held in much higher regard than and MBA or marketing person would be. As a result, the top Indian schools are good at training people in technical fields, but not so good at training liberal arts people. The same would would be true for a highly technology oriented school in the U.S.
Somebody mod this post up, if only for number 3. It seems to me that most Americans have a significantly skewed perspective on countries outside the USA, and a skewed perspective on where these people are coming from. Since I originally hail from Bangladesh (next to India) I can vouch for the fact that there is a large educated class (not so large as in the US, but significant) that can take advantage of things like the H1-B. H1-B's aren't going to be people at the very top (those would just emigrate outright) and they aren't going to be people at the very bottom (because they can't afford to get the skills and they can't afford to emigrate). In reality, they're likely to be people in what we'd consider the "professional" middle class.
You know, there is an element of thruth to this. I was just thinking the other day: I think I want an iPod (about $400). Then I though, man I could donate that instead and feed a dozen people. Bothered the hell out of me. Still does. I decided that the world sucks and I just gotta live my life, so I got the iPod. But a dozen people...man, I hate myself that I can justify that...
How many of you are doing 3D rendering, professional Photoshop work, or heavy duty web/database serving from your laptop? :) I also do lots of compiling and engineering modeling, so that's 4 out of 3. I need to use a laptop because a) I'm in a dorm and I need the mobility, b) you can't get 133dpi LCDs (awesome for reading text) on desktops, and c) I got to LAN parties and it's uber-cool when you can just put our computer in a backpack and run while all your friends are lugging 19" CRTs around.
>>>>>>>>.
I've got 2 out of 3 (well, not *pro* Photoshop work, but amatuar GIMPing
many of the zealots here think they have the "right" to the fruits of any programmer or company's labor, simply because it's trivial to make copies of the original work.
>>>>>>>
Is it really such a zealot-ous concept? I mean science has been operating the same way for hundreds of years (you base your own work upon all the discoveries of others), and it's worked amazingly well. I'd say that this new paradigm, that companies have absolute power over their creations, is the one that is new and unusual.
You've got to be joking me. Less than 8 hours from my initial post. Let's give the man a hand here folks :)
Unfortunately, the new .NET style left all the corner pixels off all the widgets. I like it a lot, but the lack of corner pixels (especially since I'm on a high-res display and the gaps are *tiny*) is really distracting.
Does he Find Windows easier to Use because its his default DE?
>>>>>
The second one. I use KDE, and I find XP to be confusing as hell. Especially since they changed everything around since Win2k. It's a *she* by the way.
You're comparing a dual processor machine to a single processor machine. Dual processor machines are known for being much more responsive, regardless of clock speed.
I really wish people would understand clock speed has nothing to do with how fast a processor can perform a given task.
>>>>>>>>
Actually, it has a great deal to do with how fast a processor can perform a given task.
Performance = Efficiency * Clock_Speed
It's linear in both terms. Doubling clock-speed is just as good as doubling efficiency. However, doubling efficiency is much, much, much, harder to do than doubling clock speed. As for a 1GHz G4 being 2x faster, yea right. It's not even *theoretically* 2x faster. If you take a look at real benchmarks (try the ArsTechnica thread) you'll see that it's rarely better than 20 or 30% faster at a give clock speed.
I live in a college dorm and listen to MP3s through good headphones but through a *laptop* soundcard. The audio output is so bad that even at moderate volume you get a whole lot of noise. Even then, a 128 kbps MP3 is blatently obvious. At 192 kbps, the difference is small enough that you have to be listening for it, but 128 is definately not enough. Besides, the original point of this thread was that a 192-kbps MP3 is nowhere near CD quality. The listening environment isn't at issue here.
CHeap your audio signal. 128kbps is so blatently bad that even the average person can quickly pick up on it. I suppose it doesn't matter if you listen to rock, but try some delicate female vocals (which is what I listen to most often) or light flutes and strings, and you'll definately notice the difference.
Mysteriously enough, most audiophiles hear what they want to hear.
>>>>>>>>
Perhaps. But I'd also argue that most audiophiles are far more sensitive to audio quality than the average person. If they weren't sensitive to audio, they wouldn't care about it so much.
SACD/DVD-A are no better in theory than CD
>>>>>>>>>
Bad example. Lot's of people can hear the improvement in SACD players. Hell, go demo one yourself.
They really shouldn't have double the memory foot-print. Code size increases only slightly (from an average of 3.4 bytes per instruction to 3.8 bytes per instruction). Integer size remains the same. Only long integers and pointers double in size. You'd probably get more of a noticible growth by compiling with GCC with inlining enabled.
It also assumes that all of the source code is '64-bit clean', although that is likely not going to be much of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
Most Linux code is 64-bit clean. The initial Alpha port of Gentoo was done by one guy in *two days* It took more than half a decade for Microsoft to go from 16-bit to 32-bit.
You miss a very simple point here: The benifets of 64 bit outweigh the costs. Making a 64-bit machine is not expensive at all. Most parts of the system are already 64-bit or wider. The only thing is the increase the widths of the ALUs, AGUs, and address lines. It's almost trivial, to the point where you see even cheap game machines with 4MB of RAM (the N64) and 16MB PDAs (Casio EM-500) having 64-bit CPUs. In fact, if it weren't for x86 architectural restrictions, we'd already be using 64-bit CPUs. Now the benifets to 64-bit are significant. You get slightly better performance for certain applications. You get to address more than 2GB (the practical limit for a 4GB virtual address space) of physical memory, which will be a limit within the next couple of years. You get to eliminate lots of stupid code inside the OS that has to manage with not being able to map all of physical memory at the same time. You get to do nice stuff like prelink all binaries (important for stuff like KDE) without worrying about running out of address space. So the question isn't: why 64-bit. It's: why not?
It's even more funny than that. It's a 48-bit virtual address mapping to a 40-bit physical address. The remaining 16-bits of the virtual address are reserved for future use, so all pointers have to be 64 bit, but you can only map stuff to the first 48-bits. This is done to keep the page table to a sane number of levels. Even with the 48-bit virtual address, it already uses a 4 level page table, because they stick with the stupid 4KB page size.
Is --alt-preset-standard any different from a regular VBR? Because I was talking about VBR files here. 192 kbps means 192 kbps average.
Hitachi is even more interesting. They make everything from CPUs to heavy construction equipment.
You know, 4.7GB is probably a bit too much storage for a single disc. I'd really like to see one of those 1.5 GB mini-cds put to use in a small portable. It would be competition for the iPod, anyway, and much needed one at that.
virtually indistinguishable from the source CDs (even to audiophiles), at an average bitrate of around 192kbps
>>>>>>>>
I don't know about that. With my Sony D66's (not quite audiophile quality, but very nice) I can hear a significant difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD. At 256 kbps, I really have to be looking for it, so that's what I encode at. Through my speakers (Klipsch 4.1's, again not audiophile quality, but nice as far as PC speakers go) I can't really tell the difference at 192 kbps unless it's a type of song that MP3 just doesn't encode well. I think the main thing here is that: a) headphones will reveal quality differences much more than comparably priced speakers, and b) PC audio systems suck enough that a good pair of speakers aren't the bottleneck when comparing compression standards. If you go to a pair of really accurate headphones (like the in-ear ER-4's) even non-audiophiles will hear the difference. And at less than $300, it's not like we're talking about some $5000 home theater system here.
South Africa has a large white population. They were in control of the country until only recently, and they still have many of the higher level jobs and positions.