Well, syntax has nothing to do with threads or speed. And plenty of languages have threads and speed. So you must think there is some fundamental incompatability between perl-like libraries and one of the others... but which one?
> I don't see where the submitter gets off claiming that > MR introduced us to *any* new cinematic technique,
Then you didn't really look into it much, did you? The Matrix was one of the first practical uses of a reverse rendering technique.
In normal 3D graphics a scene is constructed out of triangles and textures are created to map onto those triangles. Once the scene is complete a virtual camera can be moved through it with ease.
MR took the opposite approach. They used stereoscopic cameras to generate a 3D model of the world out of photographs of it. They then used the photograph as the texture for this world. Now, you clearly noticed that the Neo and the Agent Smith's were fake in the Burly Brawl. Did you also notice that the buildings, the sky, the ground, the lamp post and every other part of the scene were fake?
They invented and used new rendering and modeling techniques as they went. They invented a suite of software tools to make such things much easier for future projects.
> except perhaps for the fight scene with 200 Agent Smiths > and not only was that done poorly but the whole thing > could have been avoided if only Neo had done another > one of his Superman jumps. In other words, it was > gratuitous.
I'm sorry, but have you ever seen an action movie before? They aren't very good when the protagonist avoids all conflict...
Where do you find people with 'computer skills' but no experience with Linux or Windows? They'd have to be Mac users. But I can't imagine them going out of their way to compliment XP. So, I agreed with you.
Then, I thought:
Wait. Look at that wording. "no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP." In other words, they could have used Windows folks who hadn't gotten around to upgrading yet. Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users. Small wonder they'd be complimenting the XP interface.
Just a thought, but it may help explain the results...
Having multiple functions that do the same thing is not the same as having more syntax. You could view the amount of syntax a language has as a parallel to how hard it is to describe its tokenizer. That's a rough generalization, but gets the point across.
In Lisp the only way to define a function is with lambda. The other ways are all macros that expand to include a call to lambda.
(defun foo (x y) (+ x y)) is a macro that expands to something similar to (set (symbol-function 'foo) (lambda (x y) (+ x y)))
Perl uses {} for blocks, () for lists, [] for arrays, {} for hashes, ; to delimit statements, $ for scalars, @ for arrays, % for hashes, & for functions, \ for references, <== and ==> for pipelines, -> for anonymous subs, => within hashes, = for assignment,:= for binding,::= for compile-time binding, m// for matching, s/// for substitutions, tr/// for translations, . for member access,:: for package access, {...} for function declarations, <<>> for labels, * for other kinds of lists, <> for file reading, [] for array slicing, and # for comments.
And I haven't even mentioned the plethora of keywords in Perl, such as my, our, of, sub,....
Lisp has () for lists, #() for vectors, ' for quoting, ` for backquoting, , and,@ for unquoting, #. for read-time processing, : and:: for package access. The semi-colon in Lisp is used for comments, not for making pairs.
I've never seen a language with so much syntax. Perl 5 had more than enough, now they've more than doubled it.
You have { } for blocks, and for automatically parameterized blocks (ie. anonymous functions).
You have =,:= and::=, ~=, ~~,.... = does assignment,:= does binding and::= works at compile time and is normally used to define types and such, ~= is pattern matching, and I have no idea what ~~ does.
You have the new <== and ==> pipeline operators. They are dataflow operators. Like so:
$foo ==> my_func ==> $bar; is the same as $bar <== my_func <== $foo is the same as $bar = my_func($foo); is the same as...
You already had the $,@,%,& to prefix variables with.
You have more uses for * now, as in slurpy arrays and splicing. As in, the * can make an array parameter slurp up all the remaining arguments, or it can make an argument flatten into a list of arguments.
They've added some wierd << foo >> syntax that I didn't even bother to read about as I was in syntax shock.
They've added ^ which indicates that a variable in a block is actually a parameter and therefore the blocks is actually a parameterized blocks (ie. anonymous function). So, now you can't tell if something surrounded by { }'s is just a block of code or whether it's an anonymous function. Although, I don't think this is a problem as it's usually obvious from the context.
And I didn't even read to the end of the paper!
Makes me want to go write some Lisp, which is perhaps the antithesis of Perl. Lisp has the maximum possibile flexibility through having the minimum possible syntax. Perl originally had little flexibility, now they are trying to add more by adding more syntax. The problem is, if they want to get anywhere near Lisp-level flexibility with this method they'll need to move to Unicode for the syntax!
Maybe you didn't read the parent post carefully enough...
He made TWO points.
The first was that you should be able to buy a Mac without having to pay for OS X. The second was that you should be able to make clones.
The first was the one that I was rebuking in my post. The second is the one you are talking about.
The second point is also bunk however. It is impossible to draw a good parallel between printers/ink and computers/operating systems. And, anyway, as Apple is not involved in anti-competitive behavior of note as they are a niche player.
I don't recall anyone telling Lexmark how they are allowed to sell their product. Lexmark printers come with ink cartridges. They are included in the price. They didn't rule that this was illegal, nor should it be illegal. You can't walk into McDonalds and tell them that because they sell milkshakes in their own cups, that they should be able to give you one in a cup you brought with you at a discounted rate because you are saving them a cup. Nor, can you ask for a Big Mac without the bun at a discount. They can do whatever they want. They aren't forcing you to buy it.
Read the abstract of the patent... it sounds nothing like su:
A computer system is disclosed which may adopt one of many personas, depending upon the role that its owner is currently playing. The computer system includes a central repository of extensible personas available to all applications running on the computer system. Each such persona has associated therewith a suite of parameters, or specific values for parameters, which are appropriate for conducting computer implemented transactions under a particular persona. The computer system further includes a graphical user interface which allows the user to switch from persona to persona by selecting a particular persona from a list of available personas displayed on a display screen of the computer system. By selecting such persona, the user causes the computer system to globally change the entire suite of parameter values so that subsequent transactions conducted with the computer system employ the parameter values of the current persona.
Now, my question. How are Locations and Multiple Users compatible? With multiple users, the other users are still active in the background. So, the foreground user should be running in his location . But, the background users should be running in their locations. What if the locations aren't compatible?
For example:
What if the users have different MTUs set?
What if they are on different wireless networks?
Maybe there are two levels of settings. There's a global level that effects system settings like sleep times, network settings and so forth. Then, there's a set of more local settings that affect application preferences. I don't know. Just curious how they'll get this all to work together well...
A friend and I have iChat AV. We are in separate states, each behind our own OpenBSD based firewalls. Only a few specific ports like 22 (ssh) and 80 (web) are tunneled through.
I fired up iChat AV, and so did he. I saw the little phone button next to his name, so I pressed it. It connected and we started talking. Working great. No port forwarding.
IIRC, the audio stream is sent right inside the instant messager packets so as long as you can instant message, you can use voice.
I'll break out tcpdump and check it out sometime. No hurry though, cause it works great...
Don't know what file YOU downloaded, but I just downloaded both sources for the pdf and went to the download link for the other site and downloaded that pdf.
I second that motion. My main machine is a Powerbook G4 at 667Mhz from about 1.5 years ago. It works wonderfully for development work. I do heavy C++ and Java development on it and it performs beautifully.
I also second the paint problem.
There is also a bit of a 802.11b problem. For some dumb reason they ran the antennae horizontally in the base rather then up the side of the display like a self-respecting laptop would. This decreases the distance you can be from your WAP and still have a good connection.
I don't have a big problem with this as I am in a small apartment, but even through just 2 walls or so over a distance of 20 feet the quality will drop to under half.
Fabulous laptop though. Perfect for development work. Jaguar comes pre-installed with C, C++, Objective-C, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby...
I'm still not convinced that the level of optimization for the 970 in GCC is equivalent to the level for the x86 in icc.
You may very well be right though.
I still think assembler is the way to go to get these compilers out of the loop. If you want to test compilers then what you are testing is "real-world" performance which isn't what the spec tests are for. That's what the real-world tests were for.
They chose a more fair comparison of gcc on both platforms rather than gcc on one and an optimized Intel compiler for the other.
If they are going to use icc on Intel then they should use a optimized ppc970 compiler as well.
To use only one architecture-optimized compiler is to make the results a comparison of compilers rather than architectures.
Ideally they would use hand-optimized assembler for each platform so they could demonstrate the true potential power of each system. In this battle the PPC970 would win. It has much more floating-point power and comparable integer power. It also scales MUCH better from 1 processors to 2.
I think Intel is setting themselves up to lose in the long-run by choosing clock-rate over power-per-clock. The PPC970 will be up to 3Ghz in a year. That's a 50% gain. Intel would have to up the clock to just over 4.5Ghz without pulling the game of lengthening the pipeline. If they do that they'd have to up the clock even further.
You are right. I'm sure that the compiler is well optimized for PPC.
I didn't know about the GCC exploit. A quick google-ing turned up nothing. It seems unlikely they would remove an optimization because of potential linking issues with a specific license. Maybe they'd just leave it turned off by default and require a special flag to enable it.
If what you say is true, then that seems very immoral and politically-motivated, which does seem right up RMS's alley...
I still don't see using gcc on both platforms as unfair. Yes, using the Intel compiler might have yielded better results, but these were VERY specific tests about integer and floating-point performance and I'm pretty sure there aren't any optimizations related to FP or INT performance that GCC would skip due to GPL issues.
Ideally, the test would be composed of hand-coded, optimized assembler for each platform designed to solve a specific integer or floating-point intensive problem. This would remove the compiler argument and make the test much more fair as it would truly be testing the speed of the processor.
First off, GCC is probably better optimized for x86 then it is for the PPC 970 by virtue of the fact that it's been running on x86 for so much longer. So, even using the same compiler, the field is still tilted in the direction of x86.
Second, the test is of the speed of the processors, not the quality of the optimizing compilers for them.
Third, the "fastest" comment was made with respect to the dual-processor configurations. The numbers you site are for the single-processor version.
Yes, in single-processor land Apple lost in intspec by about 10%, but won in floating-point land by about 30%. This is using a compiler that is better optimized for the competitor. And they still came out ahead.
In dual-processor land they came out ~10% ahead in integer land and over 40% ahead in floating-point land. A tremendous difference.
The real-world tests they performed seemed to back up these results with Photoshop, Mathematica and a few other programs running an average of 2x faster on the PPC 970.
This may sound incredible, but it is just a matter of bandwidth, and the G5 has plenty of it.
The dual-processors have completely independant busses, a 1Ghz FSB, 400Mhz 128-bit DDR memory, two independant floating-point units and two independant integer units. The PPC970 is capable handling over 120 in-flight instructions, that is, instructions which can be worked on and processed in parallel. In P4-land only a few dozen instructions are can potentially be run in parallel.
Do you really think that Apple would hire a company like VeriTest to verify their results and then lie about them? If they didn't actually have better spec scores they just wouldn't have used those tests...
I think that you will find few people who use Safari because of it's underlying KHTML components.
People use it because: 1. It's fast (really freaking fast) 2. Nice, easy-to-use interface 3. Renders fonts beautifully compared to IE/Mozilla.
Numbers 2 and 3 have nothing to do with KHTML. KHTML is also not the only reason behind number 1.
So, I guess MS was unable to compete with Apple on Apple's home turf (Mac OS X). IE had a head start, but very little resources at MSFT were given to that project. Apple poured a bunch into it.
Not trying to knock Apple. My main machine is PowerBook. Not trying to knock KHTML either. It's a great project.
I just don't think your analysis is very accurate, especially as MSFT had no incentive to compete with Safari as Mac's have so little of the market share.
That's why the two blond-haired see-through dudes said:
"We are getting tired of this." "Yes, we are."
Or something like that.
And that's why former-Agent Smith wants to "return the favor" to Neo and is tracking him down. It's because of some kind of revenge/vengeance that isn't born out of emotion?
It's so obvious from watching the program's interact that they have emotions. Crazy french dude cheated on his wife, so his wife got pissed, went behind his back, killed one of his favorite programs and gave the good guys the key maker, all of which infuriated french dude. Those don't sound quite like the actions of emotionless beings to me.
This is of course wrong, since MP3s use lossy compression and are in that manner comparable to consumer analog formats.
Boy did you SO completely miss the point. With a casette tape or other traditional analog format the quality is degraded WITH EACH COPY. By the time you are on the sixth generation of a casette the quality is miserable.
An MP3, obviously, does not exhibit this effect. Unless each person were to re-encode every mp3 he downloaded for no apparent reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, syntax has nothing to do with threads or speed. And plenty of languages have threads and speed. So you must think there is some fundamental incompatability between perl-like libraries and one of the others... but which one?
Justin Dubs
> I don't see where the submitter gets off claiming that
> MR introduced us to *any* new cinematic technique,
Then you didn't really look into it much, did you? The Matrix was one of the first practical uses of a reverse rendering technique.
In normal 3D graphics a scene is constructed out of triangles and textures are created to map onto those triangles. Once the scene is complete a virtual camera can be moved through it with ease.
MR took the opposite approach. They used stereoscopic cameras to generate a 3D model of the world out of photographs of it. They then used the photograph as the texture for this world. Now, you clearly noticed that the Neo and the Agent Smith's were fake in the Burly Brawl. Did you also notice that the buildings, the sky, the ground, the lamp post and every other part of the scene were fake?
They invented and used new rendering and modeling techniques as they went. They invented a suite of software tools to make such things much easier for future projects.
> except perhaps for the fight scene with 200 Agent Smiths
> and not only was that done poorly but the whole thing
> could have been avoided if only Neo had done another
> one of his Superman jumps. In other words, it was
> gratuitous.
I'm sorry, but have you ever seen an action movie before? They aren't very good when the protagonist avoids all conflict...
Justin Dubs
A quick google turned up a math department website descriping how to setup secure IMAP. So, I know the math department supports it.
I know the school supports secure webmail. Thanks for catching that mistake.
Justin Dubs
I'm only familiar with three universities:
1. North Carolina State University (my school)
2. Penn State University (my fiancee's school)
3. University of Ohio (my sister's school)
They all three offer secure webmail.
They all three offer IMAP with SSL.
So, even if it isn't everywhere, I'd say it's definitly taking hold.
Justin Dubs
At first, I thought:
Where do you find people with 'computer skills' but no experience with Linux or Windows? They'd have to be Mac users. But I can't imagine them going out of their way to compliment XP. So, I agreed with you.
Then, I thought:
Wait. Look at that wording. "no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP." In other words, they could have used Windows folks who hadn't gotten around to upgrading yet. Windows 98 and Windows 2000 users. Small wonder they'd be complimenting the XP interface.
Just a thought, but it may help explain the results...
Justin Dubs
Having multiple functions that do the same thing is not the same as having more syntax. You could view the amount of syntax a language has as a parallel to how hard it is to describe its tokenizer. That's a rough generalization, but gets the point across.
:= for binding, ::= for compile-time binding, m// for matching, s/// for substitutions, tr/// for translations, . for member access, :: for package access, {...} for function declarations, <<>> for labels, * for other kinds of lists, <> for file reading, [] for array slicing, and # for comments.
....
,@ for unquoting, #. for read-time processing, : and :: for package access. The semi-colon in Lisp is used for comments, not for making pairs.
In Lisp the only way to define a function is with lambda. The other ways are all macros that expand to include a call to lambda.
(defun foo (x y) (+ x y))
is a macro that expands to something similar to
(set (symbol-function 'foo) (lambda (x y) (+ x y)))
Perl uses {} for blocks, () for lists, [] for arrays, {} for hashes, ; to delimit statements, $ for scalars, @ for arrays, % for hashes, & for functions, \ for references, <== and ==> for pipelines, -> for anonymous subs, => within hashes, = for assignment,
And I haven't even mentioned the plethora of keywords in Perl, such as my, our, of, sub,
Lisp has () for lists, #() for vectors, ' for quoting, ` for backquoting, , and
That's all I can think of for Lisp, offhand.
Justin Dubs
I've never seen a language with so much syntax. Perl 5 had more than enough, now they've more than doubled it.
:= and ::=, ~=, ~~, .... = does assignment, := does binding and ::= works at compile time and is normally used to define types and such, ~= is pattern matching, and I have no idea what ~~ does.
...
You have { } for blocks, and for automatically parameterized blocks (ie. anonymous functions).
You have =,
You have the new <== and ==> pipeline operators. They are dataflow operators. Like so:
$foo ==> my_func ==> $bar;
is the same as
$bar <== my_func <== $foo
is the same as
$bar = my_func($foo);
is the same as
You already had the $,@,%,& to prefix variables with.
You have more uses for * now, as in slurpy arrays and splicing. As in, the * can make an array parameter slurp up all the remaining arguments, or it can make an argument flatten into a list of arguments.
They've added some wierd << foo >> syntax that I didn't even bother to read about as I was in syntax shock.
They've added ^ which indicates that a variable in a block is actually a parameter and therefore the blocks is actually a parameterized blocks (ie. anonymous function). So, now you can't tell if something surrounded by { }'s is just a block of code or whether it's an anonymous function. Although, I don't think this is a problem as it's usually obvious from the context.
And I didn't even read to the end of the paper!
Makes me want to go write some Lisp, which is perhaps the antithesis of Perl. Lisp has the maximum possibile flexibility through having the minimum possible syntax. Perl originally had little flexibility, now they are trying to add more by adding more syntax. The problem is, if they want to get anywhere near Lisp-level flexibility with this method they'll need to move to Unicode for the syntax!
Justin Dubs
:-)
No problem. It got modded to -1, Troll anyway. Hehe.
Justin Dubs
Maybe you didn't read the parent post carefully enough...
He made TWO points.
The first was that you should be able to buy a Mac without having to pay for OS X. The second was that you should be able to make clones.
The first was the one that I was rebuking in my post. The second is the one you are talking about.
The second point is also bunk however. It is impossible to draw a good parallel between printers/ink and computers/operating systems. And, anyway, as Apple is not involved in anti-competitive behavior of note as they are a niche player.
Justin Dubs
That's the dumbest crap I've ever heard.
I don't recall anyone telling Lexmark how they are allowed to sell their product. Lexmark printers come with ink cartridges. They are included in the price. They didn't rule that this was illegal, nor should it be illegal. You can't walk into McDonalds and tell them that because they sell milkshakes in their own cups, that they should be able to give you one in a cup you brought with you at a discounted rate because you are saving them a cup. Nor, can you ask for a Big Mac without the bun at a discount. They can do whatever they want. They aren't forcing you to buy it.
Justin Dubs
Read the abstract of the patent... it sounds nothing like su:
A computer system is disclosed which may adopt one of many personas, depending upon the role that its owner is currently playing. The computer system includes a central repository of extensible personas available to all applications running on the computer system. Each such persona has associated therewith a suite of parameters, or specific values for parameters, which are appropriate for conducting computer implemented transactions under a particular persona. The computer system further includes a graphical user interface which allows the user to switch from persona to persona by selecting a particular persona from a list of available personas displayed on a display screen of the computer system. By selecting such persona, the user causes the computer system to globally change the entire suite of parameter values so that subsequent transactions conducted with the computer system employ the parameter values of the current persona.
Now, my question. How are Locations and Multiple Users compatible? With multiple users, the other users are still active in the background. So, the foreground user should be running in his location . But, the background users should be running in their locations. What if the locations aren't compatible?
For example:
Maybe there are two levels of settings. There's a global level that effects system settings like sleep times, network settings and so forth. Then, there's a set of more local settings that affect application preferences. I don't know. Just curious how they'll get this all to work together well...
Justin DubsI agree completely. Just gotta know which ones fits the situation.
Have a good one,
Justin Dubs
So, would you rather put on a resume:
1. I contributed to a project that got out the door quick and made lots of money for the company.
2. I contributed to a project that was well engineered, and was so late to market that no one wanted it.
I think most managers would rather see the first one...
Justin Dubs
This quote is rendered impotent by its infinite scope.
Wouldn't anything ingestible fall under the blanked of "man's appetite", including pot, crack, acid and every other drug?
What about prostitution and stripping? Isn't that about satisfying "man's appetite" for sexual stimulus?
Justin Dubs
A friend and I have iChat AV. We are in separate states, each behind our own OpenBSD based firewalls. Only a few specific ports like 22 (ssh) and 80 (web) are tunneled through.
I fired up iChat AV, and so did he. I saw the little phone button next to his name, so I pressed it. It connected and we started talking. Working great. No port forwarding.
IIRC, the audio stream is sent right inside the instant messager packets so as long as you can instant message, you can use voice.
I'll break out tcpdump and check it out sometime. No hurry though, cause it works great...
Justin Dubs
Don't know what file YOU downloaded, but I just downloaded both sources for the pdf and went to the download link for the other site and downloaded that pdf.
They were all (surprise) pdf's.
Justin
I second that motion. My main machine is a Powerbook G4 at 667Mhz from about 1.5 years ago. It works wonderfully for development work. I do heavy C++ and Java development on it and it performs beautifully.
I also second the paint problem.
There is also a bit of a 802.11b problem. For some dumb reason they ran the antennae horizontally in the base rather then up the side of the display like a self-respecting laptop would. This decreases the distance you can be from your WAP and still have a good connection.
I don't have a big problem with this as I am in a small apartment, but even through just 2 walls or so over a distance of 20 feet the quality will drop to under half.
Fabulous laptop though. Perfect for development work. Jaguar comes pre-installed with C, C++, Objective-C, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby...
Justin Dubs
I'm still not convinced that the level of optimization for the 970 in GCC is equivalent to the level for the x86 in icc.
You may very well be right though.
I still think assembler is the way to go to get these compilers out of the loop. If you want to test compilers then what you are testing is "real-world" performance which isn't what the spec tests are for. That's what the real-world tests were for.
Justin
They chose a more fair comparison of gcc on both platforms rather than gcc on one and an optimized Intel compiler for the other.
If they are going to use icc on Intel then they should use a optimized ppc970 compiler as well.
To use only one architecture-optimized compiler is to make the results a comparison of compilers rather than architectures.
Ideally they would use hand-optimized assembler for each platform so they could demonstrate the true potential power of each system. In this battle the PPC970 would win. It has much more floating-point power and comparable integer power. It also scales MUCH better from 1 processors to 2.
I think Intel is setting themselves up to lose in the long-run by choosing clock-rate over power-per-clock. The PPC970 will be up to 3Ghz in a year. That's a 50% gain. Intel would have to up the clock to just over 4.5Ghz without pulling the game of lengthening the pipeline. If they do that they'd have to up the clock even further.
But, only time will tell.
Justin Dubs
You are right. I'm sure that the compiler is well optimized for PPC.
I didn't know about the GCC exploit. A quick google-ing turned up nothing. It seems unlikely they would remove an optimization because of potential linking issues with a specific license. Maybe they'd just leave it turned off by default and require a special flag to enable it.
If what you say is true, then that seems very immoral and politically-motivated, which does seem right up RMS's alley...
I still don't see using gcc on both platforms as unfair. Yes, using the Intel compiler might have yielded better results, but these were VERY specific tests about integer and floating-point performance and I'm pretty sure there aren't any optimizations related to FP or INT performance that GCC would skip due to GPL issues.
Ideally, the test would be composed of hand-coded, optimized assembler for each platform designed to solve a specific integer or floating-point intensive problem. This would remove the compiler argument and make the test much more fair as it would truly be testing the speed of the processor.
Just some thoughts.
Justin Dubs
First off, GCC is probably better optimized for x86 then it is for the PPC 970 by virtue of the fact that it's been running on x86 for so much longer. So, even using the same compiler, the field is still tilted in the direction of x86.
Second, the test is of the speed of the processors, not the quality of the optimizing compilers for them.
Third, the "fastest" comment was made with respect to the dual-processor configurations. The numbers you site are for the single-processor version.
Yes, in single-processor land Apple lost in intspec by about 10%, but won in floating-point land by about 30%. This is using a compiler that is better optimized for the competitor. And they still came out ahead.
In dual-processor land they came out ~10% ahead in integer land and over 40% ahead in floating-point land. A tremendous difference.
The real-world tests they performed seemed to back up these results with Photoshop, Mathematica and a few other programs running an average of 2x faster on the PPC 970.
This may sound incredible, but it is just a matter of bandwidth, and the G5 has plenty of it.
The dual-processors have completely independant busses, a 1Ghz FSB, 400Mhz 128-bit DDR memory, two independant floating-point units and two independant integer units. The PPC970 is capable handling over 120 in-flight instructions, that is, instructions which can be worked on and processed in parallel. In P4-land only a few dozen instructions are can potentially be run in parallel.
Do you really think that Apple would hire a company like VeriTest to verify their results and then lie about them? If they didn't actually have better spec scores they just wouldn't have used those tests...
Justin Dubs
I think that you will find few people who use Safari because of it's underlying KHTML components.
People use it because:
1. It's fast (really freaking fast)
2. Nice, easy-to-use interface
3. Renders fonts beautifully compared to IE/Mozilla.
Numbers 2 and 3 have nothing to do with KHTML. KHTML is also not the only reason behind number 1.
So, I guess MS was unable to compete with Apple on Apple's home turf (Mac OS X). IE had a head start, but very little resources at MSFT were given to that project. Apple poured a bunch into it.
Not trying to knock Apple. My main machine is PowerBook. Not trying to knock KHTML either. It's a great project.
I just don't think your analysis is very accurate, especially as MSFT had no incentive to compete with Safari as Mac's have so little of the market share.
Justin
That's why the two blond-haired see-through dudes said:
"We are getting tired of this."
"Yes, we are."
Or something like that.
And that's why former-Agent Smith wants to "return the favor" to Neo and is tracking him down. It's because of some kind of revenge/vengeance that isn't born out of emotion?
It's so obvious from watching the program's interact that they have emotions. Crazy french dude cheated on his wife, so his wife got pissed, went behind his back, killed one of his favorite programs and gave the good guys the key maker, all of which infuriated french dude. Those don't sound quite like the actions of emotionless beings to me.
Justin Dubs
This is of course wrong, since MP3s use lossy compression and are in that manner comparable to consumer analog formats.
Boy did you SO completely miss the point. With a casette tape or other traditional analog format the quality is degraded WITH EACH COPY. By the time you are on the sixth generation of a casette the quality is miserable.
An MP3, obviously, does not exhibit this effect. Unless each person were to re-encode every mp3 he downloaded for no apparent reason.
Justin Dubs
By the way, I don't think Morpheus et al are computer programs, Neo would notice that when they were in the matrix.
Why do you think that? He certainly didn't notice that the Oracle and her bodyguard were programs...
Justin Dubs