1) This is a high-end CPU. Other CPUs in the same line have TDPs of ~50 watts. This is more than a P-M, and might be an issue on laptops, but is well within the power dissipation that can be quietly handled on a desktop.
2) AMD reports TDP_max, while Intel reports TDP_avg. A dual-core Prescott is rated at something like 130 watts TDP, but its TDP_max is over 180 watts. While the P-M uses much less power, its TDP_max is going to still be higher than the TDP_avg that Intel reports.
Actually, the sentence is wrong. "Stacked" means back-to-back. That's the only way to stack a book. I dare you to "stack" even two paperbacks end to end...
I'm not the one who characterized Google employees as PHDs and scientists, the original poster was. I was simply using his terminology, to defend phds and scientists in general.
In retrospect I think my characterization wasn't entirely fair. I based my judgement on the papers from MSR that I'd seen in my field of interest (compiler optimization), and they had seemed to me of the applied type rather than the theoretical type. Even looking through MSR's website, a lot of the high-profile stuff (eg: Singularity) seems a bit derivative. On the other hand, there does seem to be some genuinely new stuff in some of the research areas.
You missed my point completely. The original-poster was complaining that Google was filled with PHDs and scientists, and suggested they should hire Microsoft-type people instead. The statement suggests that Microsoft type people are not PHDs and scientists, but rather, applied folks with "tech and business smarts". My point was that without PHDs and scientists (Google-type people, using the poster's terminology), where would the applications people (Microsoft-type people, using the poster's terminology), get their ideas?
They are loading up with PHds and scientists. If these guys had any useful brains, they would be super rich already. At least they'll be wasting private funds and not public funds. Doesn't anyone think Google needs more Microsoft-type people...people with tech and biz smarts ?
Without Google-type people, who would Microsoft-type people copy? If you doubt this, I dare you to name a single Microsoft project that isn't ultimately copied from something a PHD or scientist dreamed up. Even their "research" projects tend to be of the applied type, rather than the "new ideas" type.
That's not an indication that the middle class is shrinking. The data shows a very small change, over a very short time period. The data also happens to coincide precisely with a recession. I respect factcheck.org a lot, and if you actually read their article, they refer to the fact that they were dubious of Kerry's numbers earlier (and link to that article). They're certainly not saying that the middle class is shrinking, as a trend. They're just showing that we're in a downward part of the business cycle, probably caused by Bush's economic mismanagement.
That said, nothing in there backs up the statement the original OP made, which is "the middle class is evaporating before our eyes". All capitalist economies operate in cycles, and the fact that we're on a downard part of the cycle doesn't prove that there is a long-term trend of the middle class evaporating. If you'd looked at the numbers during Bush I, you could have said the same thing, but when under Clinton, the economy recovered and the middle class kept going. However, with respect to trade, Clinton didn't really change anything. He was as pro-free trade as most republicans!
There is no data that the middle class is shrinking. The closest thing there is is a census result that the percentage of Americans earning between $25,000 and $75,000 a year has shrunk 1.2% since Bush took office. Since Bush's first term consisted of a recession, excuse me if I don't take that little tidbit as proof that there is a long-term decline in the middle class.
It has nothing to do with compassion, or anything happening to me. A country as a whole cannot make policy based on compassion for individuals. Why is one person more deserving of compassion than another? If an engineer loses his job, but someone gets a job in communications as a result, should policy really be based on compassion for the engineer? What about the other guy?
If the jobless rate is 5% (and there will always be some unemployment), is making legislation to keep that the 95% secure in their jobs really fair? Why do those specific people deserve jobs while the other 5% do not? What is fair about that?
As for you statistics bullshit --- that's a ridiculous argument. You're basically saying that "the data is wrong, if you knew the real data, it'd show the middle class is shrinking". Well fictituous data is really convenient, isn't it? As an engineer, I'm sure my boss would love it if I based a design on fictituous data...
Nice attempt at misdirection. People are complaining about loss of employment and a living wage for themselves.
No misdirection at all. The original poster claimed that an increase in GDP doesn't necessarily benefit the "average worker". I'm just pointing out that in a society where the rich carry 50% of the tax burden, if the rich make more money, there is more money to benefit everyone else.
If you lose your job in an industry segment where the new trend is to send it to India or China where they can pay someone one tenth of your salary with no benefits; what are you supposed to do?
What's the alternative? Force companies to maintain your job? In a supposedly free country? What happens when they decide "screw the US" and relocate in the EU? That'll be even worse for the job situation here. Even if we force them to stay here, what happens when their competitors in the EU beat them by taking advantage of cheaper labor? That guy is still screwed. There is no way to fight the natural tendencies of a free society. The best you can hope to do is go in the direction that hurts people the least.
Hmmm, which field? Working in retail at walmart or target for slave wages?
Why not? Half the country lives on wages not much higher than that, what entitles this guy to live any better? It is random fate that gave him the opportunity to live more nicely than everyone else, and now, random fate is taking that opportunity away. If I'm going to feel bad for somebody because of their bad luck, excuse me if I save it for people who actually deserve it.
with NO healthcare by the way.
Bullshit. Medicare and Medicade are hundred-billion dollar programs. Sure, our system isn't great compared to what the Europeans have, but investment in the system still helps out your average person.
Who the hell cares about ex-engineers? Who the hell cares about specific people who lose their jobs? That's what happens --- some people lose jobs, some people gain jobs. Some people have bad luck and some people have good luck. That's just how life works.
What you want to watch for is not specific people losing jobs, but an increase in the jobless rate. What you want to watch for is not specific people going from being middle class to being lower class, but the size of the middle class as a whole shrinking. What matters are the large scale trends, and those trends don't support the doomsday idea that the middle class is dissapearing.
Yes,the gap between rich and poor are getting bigger. The poor are doing better than before, and the rich are doing even better. In a free society, that's the only possible expectation --- if you leave people free to do what they want, the rich will make money faster, because its easier to make money when you have money! None of that means that anything is happening to the middle class.
In a country like the United States, where the top 5% pay a full 50% of the tax burden, that's exactly what it means. I see lots of people bitching that the rich are making money, but I don't see a single person standing up and refusing to accept all the redistributed income that pays for their roads, schools, healthcare, defense, etc.
Bullshit. There is no evidence that the middle class is going anywhere. The manufacturing people used the same argument when their jobs became obsolete, and looky here, the middle class is still doing just fine.
Under the aegis of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), illegal aliens flood into the USA and have essentially destroyed the wages in the market for unskilled labor.
Which is bullshit, of course. A study of NAFTA showed that, as predicted by economic theory, both Mexico and the United States benifited from the agreement. Mexico benefited relatively more, but in the end, both countries were richer with NAFTA than they would have been without NAFTA.
Saying that the world economy will "average out" is asnine. When, in the history of the world, have the poor gotten richer and the rich gotten poorer? The overwhelming trend in the last century or two has been the increasing gap between the prosperity of rich nations and poor nations.
Ease of use has everything to do with style. A well designed piece of equipment that is suited to a particular task or set of tasks is by definition designed to perform those tasks with a minumum of fuss and confusion for the person using it. Are people comfortable in badly "styled" chairs? Keyboards? Mice? It matters in more ways that you think.
You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".
Compare the development system pictures with pictures of the current G5 towers. What do you see? When you look at the G5 it looks complete. It looks like a fully filled out system with nothing out of place. Everything is tied and routed nicely and looks clean.
Anyone who's done any sort of user support or helpdesk or field service of PCs knows that perception is everything to a user. Sad but true. This machine in it's present form would be percieved as "messy", "empty", and "confusing" just by looking through the side plastic of the case.
How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?
Proper design is a "balance" of all the factors I mentioned and probably quite more that I can't recall at the moment.
The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.
Oh, and just because you can't see the "whole picture" of something does not make it "fluffy nonsense".
It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are. Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!
What the hell are you talking about? How does "ease of use" have anything to do with "style"? And how does switching to x86 change anything of the things you mentioned. What sort of "balance" are you talking about anyway? It sounds like a bunch of fluffy nonesense.
The numbers don't refer to the incomes of military recruits. They refer to the incomes of the families from which military personnel. The statistics suggest that the military tends to recruit from poorer families, which is certainly not new information.
Slashdot Mirror
Couple of points.
1) This is a high-end CPU. Other CPUs in the same line have TDPs of ~50 watts. This is more than a P-M, and might be an issue on laptops, but is well within the power dissipation that can be quietly handled on a desktop.
2) AMD reports TDP_max, while Intel reports TDP_avg. A dual-core Prescott is rated at something like 130 watts TDP, but its TDP_max is over 180 watts. While the P-M uses much less power, its TDP_max is going to still be higher than the TDP_avg that Intel reports.
Actually, the sentence is wrong. "Stacked" means back-to-back. That's the only way to stack a book. I dare you to "stack" even two paperbacks end to end...
To be fair, the collection is billed as one of classic, western literature. Though, your other points stand.
I'm not the one who characterized Google employees as PHDs and scientists, the original poster was. I was simply using his terminology, to defend phds and scientists in general.
In retrospect I think my characterization wasn't entirely fair. I based my judgement on the papers from MSR that I'd seen in my field of interest (compiler optimization), and they had seemed to me of the applied type rather than the theoretical type. Even looking through MSR's website, a lot of the high-profile stuff (eg: Singularity) seems a bit derivative. On the other hand, there does seem to be some genuinely new stuff in some of the research areas.
You missed my point completely. The original-poster was complaining that Google was filled with PHDs and scientists, and suggested they should hire Microsoft-type people instead. The statement suggests that Microsoft type people are not PHDs and scientists, but rather, applied folks with "tech and business smarts". My point was that without PHDs and scientists (Google-type people, using the poster's terminology), where would the applications people (Microsoft-type people, using the poster's terminology), get their ideas?
They are loading up with PHds and scientists. If these guys had any useful brains, they would be super rich already. At least they'll be wasting private funds and not public funds. Doesn't anyone think Google needs more Microsoft-type people...people with tech and biz smarts ?
Without Google-type people, who would Microsoft-type people copy? If you doubt this, I dare you to name a single Microsoft project that isn't ultimately copied from something a PHD or scientist dreamed up. Even their "research" projects tend to be of the applied type, rather than the "new ideas" type.
That's not an indication that the middle class is shrinking. The data shows a very small change, over a very short time period. The data also happens to coincide precisely with a recession. I respect factcheck.org a lot, and if you actually read their article, they refer to the fact that they were dubious of Kerry's numbers earlier (and link to that article). They're certainly not saying that the middle class is shrinking, as a trend. They're just showing that we're in a downward part of the business cycle, probably caused by Bush's economic mismanagement.
That said, nothing in there backs up the statement the original OP made, which is "the middle class is evaporating before our eyes". All capitalist economies operate in cycles, and the fact that we're on a downard part of the cycle doesn't prove that there is a long-term trend of the middle class evaporating. If you'd looked at the numbers during Bush I, you could have said the same thing, but when under Clinton, the economy recovered and the middle class kept going. However, with respect to trade, Clinton didn't really change anything. He was as pro-free trade as most republicans!
There is no data that the middle class is shrinking. The closest thing there is is a census result that the percentage of Americans earning between $25,000 and $75,000 a year has shrunk 1.2% since Bush took office. Since Bush's first term consisted of a recession, excuse me if I don't take that little tidbit as proof that there is a long-term decline in the middle class.
It has nothing to do with compassion, or anything happening to me. A country as a whole cannot make policy based on compassion for individuals. Why is one person more deserving of compassion than another? If an engineer loses his job, but someone gets a job in communications as a result, should policy really be based on compassion for the engineer? What about the other guy?
If the jobless rate is 5% (and there will always be some unemployment), is making legislation to keep that the 95% secure in their jobs really fair? Why do those specific people deserve jobs while the other 5% do not? What is fair about that?
As for you statistics bullshit --- that's a ridiculous argument. You're basically saying that "the data is wrong, if you knew the real data, it'd show the middle class is shrinking". Well fictituous data is really convenient, isn't it? As an engineer, I'm sure my boss would love it if I based a design on fictituous data...
Nice attempt at misdirection. People are complaining about loss of employment and a living wage for themselves.
No misdirection at all. The original poster claimed that an increase in GDP doesn't necessarily benefit the "average worker". I'm just pointing out that in a society where the rich carry 50% of the tax burden, if the rich make more money, there is more money to benefit everyone else.
If you lose your job in an industry segment where the new trend is to send it to India or China where they can pay someone one tenth of your salary with no benefits; what are you supposed to do?
What's the alternative? Force companies to maintain your job? In a supposedly free country? What happens when they decide "screw the US" and relocate in the EU? That'll be even worse for the job situation here. Even if we force them to stay here, what happens when their competitors in the EU beat them by taking advantage of cheaper labor? That guy is still screwed. There is no way to fight the natural tendencies of a free society. The best you can hope to do is go in the direction that hurts people the least.
Hmmm, which field? Working in retail at walmart or target for slave wages?
Why not? Half the country lives on wages not much higher than that, what entitles this guy to live any better? It is random fate that gave him the opportunity to live more nicely than everyone else, and now, random fate is taking that opportunity away. If I'm going to feel bad for somebody because of their bad luck, excuse me if I save it for people who actually deserve it.
with NO healthcare by the way.
Bullshit. Medicare and Medicade are hundred-billion dollar programs. Sure, our system isn't great compared to what the Europeans have, but investment in the system still helps out your average person.
Who the hell cares about ex-engineers? Who the hell cares about specific people who lose their jobs? That's what happens --- some people lose jobs, some people gain jobs. Some people have bad luck and some people have good luck. That's just how life works.
What you want to watch for is not specific people losing jobs, but an increase in the jobless rate. What you want to watch for is not specific people going from being middle class to being lower class, but the size of the middle class as a whole shrinking. What matters are the large scale trends, and those trends don't support the doomsday idea that the middle class is dissapearing.
Yes ,the gap between rich and poor are getting bigger. The poor are doing better than before, and the rich are doing even better. In a free society, that's the only possible expectation --- if you leave people free to do what they want, the rich will make money faster, because its easier to make money when you have money! None of that means that anything is happening to the middle class.
There is clearly something wrong with that data. I'm guessing it's a database-related error. This paper has a good summary of the statistics.
The "average citizen." The study compared the change in per-capita GDP.
In a country like the United States, where the top 5% pay a full 50% of the tax burden, that's exactly what it means. I see lots of people bitching that the rich are making money, but I don't see a single person standing up and refusing to accept all the redistributed income that pays for their roads, schools, healthcare, defense, etc.
That'd make sense, except the fast majority of IBM's jobs are still in the West, so moving some to India makes the more international, not less.
Yes, and France should be for the French and American for the Americans. We don't need no steekin immigrants...
Bullshit. There is no evidence that the middle class is going anywhere. The manufacturing people used the same argument when their jobs became obsolete, and looky here, the middle class is still doing just fine.
Under the aegis of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), illegal aliens flood into the USA and have essentially destroyed the wages in the market for unskilled labor.
Which is bullshit, of course. A study of NAFTA showed that, as predicted by economic theory, both Mexico and the United States benifited from the agreement. Mexico benefited relatively more, but in the end, both countries were richer with NAFTA than they would have been without NAFTA.
Saying that the world economy will "average out" is asnine. When, in the history of the world, have the poor gotten richer and the rich gotten poorer? The overwhelming trend in the last century or two has been the increasing gap between the prosperity of rich nations and poor nations.
Ease of use has everything to do with style. A well designed piece of equipment that is suited to a particular task or set of tasks is by definition designed to perform those tasks with a minumum of fuss and confusion for the person using it. Are people comfortable in badly "styled" chairs? Keyboards? Mice? It matters in more ways that you think.
You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".
Compare the development system pictures with pictures of the current G5 towers. What do you see? When you look at the G5 it looks complete. It looks like a fully filled out system with nothing out of place. Everything is tied and routed nicely and looks clean.
Anyone who's done any sort of user support or helpdesk or field service of PCs knows that perception is everything to a user. Sad but true. This machine in it's present form would be percieved as "messy", "empty", and "confusing" just by looking through the side plastic of the case.
How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?
Proper design is a "balance" of all the factors I mentioned and probably quite more that I can't recall at the moment.
The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.
Oh, and just because you can't see the "whole picture" of something does not make it "fluffy nonsense".
It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are. Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!
What the hell are you talking about? How does "ease of use" have anything to do with "style"? And how does switching to x86 change anything of the things you mentioned. What sort of "balance" are you talking about anyway? It sounds like a bunch of fluffy nonesense.
The numbers don't refer to the incomes of military recruits. They refer to the incomes of the families from which military personnel. The statistics suggest that the military tends to recruit from poorer families, which is certainly not new information.
Yes, a few dozen megatons of boms would work great --- if we wanted to prolong this war for another decade...
The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" gung-ho cowboy mentality is what got us mixed up in this Middle East mess in the first place!