Yes, I've seen benchmarks of times taken to render scenes, encode songs, etc. MacWorld labs for instance do them every once in a while. You're happy to take dnetc stats, but not real world benchmarks? In fact, given that you were asking me to look at dnetc stats, why are you so upset that I've looked at other benchmarks?
I take it that you don't actually use a Mac professionally, then...
Did I ever claim to? If you look at my bio, you'll see I'm a physics student, not a graphics designer/moive-maker/professional coder/whatever. I have an iBook/500. If not for the fact that I have to fly btween home and university every couple of months, I'd probably have an iMac, or maybe a low end PowerMac since I've already got a monitor. I certainly can't afford a high-end system with the kind of tools that would use dual processors (iTunes aside). However, I don't need to be one as I can read which allows me to gether information from other people in magazines, on web sites, etc.
God save us from know-nothing wannabes.
What is it you think I want to be? Or are you simply resorting to pointless insults? I mean, really, this isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be.
Encoding (vidoe and audio), Photoshop and 3-D rendering are significant tasks that utilise multiple processors and I hace seen benchmarks where they can get to around 70%.
Okay, maybe I should have said 'best case for real world use that is applicable to a remotely significant percentage of users then', but I had assumed people would realise that was what I meant.
Wow, someone who reads my sig:^) It's probably my favourite verse and definitely worth remembering, along with the rest of the chapter. Plenty of other awesome verses around it like 8:1-2,18,28-29.
IBM has stated that they are going to use the 970 in their own Linux systems, and AltiVec support for linux exists and has been implemented.
Your Redhat link was a press release saying that they were going to start work on it last year. You haven't provided proof that it actualy has been implemented or that anyone is using it IBM has been quite happy without it so far, the Power4 didn't have it and theres no reaosn to suppose that they would have tacked it on (apparently as an after-thought) unless it was at the request of someone who already has a use for it - Apple.
In addition, Steve Jobs apparently is satisfied with the G4 roadmap.
No, he was satisfied with it last year. That doesn't mean he still is.
I've done it. The MP3 encoder is vectorized and threaded, so it pegs both CPU's and encodes at about 24X. The AAC encoder is vectorized but not threaded, so it only encodes at about 12X, but you can do two of them at once at that speed.
Cool, didn't know about that. Have to find a DP machine and try it out now:^)
Now you have. Although I wouldn't call MP3 encoding a benchmark exactly.;-)
Also, look at things like the Maya renderer. It's twice as fast on 2 as it is on 1.
I've heard conflicting reports about that, most of them saying it's less than 100%.
But the important part about have a two-processor machine is not that it's twice as fast. It's that it's more interactive. And you can't benchmark that. You also can't put a price on it
Very true. Leaving an encoder/renderer/compiler running full blast on one CPU and still being to get a responsive system out of the other is great.
What aobut the dnetc scores? If you have a point to make, say ti rather than asking me to go find your argument for you. Besides which, dnetc isn't hugely applicable to real world computer use.
I can't believe (well actually I can) he got modded down! It's a very real possibility. The whole "Apple will ship 970 based machines RSN" thing appears to be the product of rumour and speculation. Nothing interesting happening is certainly possible, and it's worth having somebody point that out. But it tells Mac users things they don't want to hear. Too bad.
He didn't say 'if nothing interesting happens, they're dead,' but rather 'if there are no 970's, they're dead' which is rubbish because Apple makes more than just professional Macs, they've plenty of cash and there can be interesting things happening aside from the 970.
You think their shareholders would like that? You think they'd just sit back and say, "well they aren't making any profit, but that's OK cos they have a cash pile to burn through"? I don't think they would.
They wouldn't think it's okay, but Apple survived the Amelio era, haemorrhaging billions, yet still being alive. They're considerably healthier now than they were then.
Depends how you define profitable. As pointed out elsewhere, their cash pile has declined by over a billion dollars, despite the company being "profitable".
A define profitable as them saying in their quarterly financial statements that they're making a profit.
Is that actually confirmed? By Apple? Or is it just people assuming that they must do, it's so obvious? Well I'm not saying they won't, but putting rumour as fact is not good.
The Velocity Engine is in the 970 so it's pretty clear that Apple is going to be using it and we know that if IBM hasn't already started volume production of the 970 but now, they will before the end of the year. If they didn't and Apple didn't have another good chip to switch to, then there would likely be sufficient bad publicity and loss of faith from professionals to cause them serious problems, but the WWDC is not the turning point.
Oh but of course like the poor poster who started this thread I have questioned the strength of Apple, which is clearly flamebait. Or overrated of course. Don't forget moderators, if you use overrated, you don't have to get metamoderated!;-)
When did I say questioning Apple was flamebait? I think he was being over-dramatic and got modded up for it, but I wouldn't say it was flame bait and neither is your post. I think your point about profitability is valid for instance. Just because some people are zealots doesn't mean all are.
Hmm, I've never sene iTunes rip more than one track at a time. I'm pretty sure it always just rips one and uses both processors for it. And I've never seen a benchmark where speed increases are more than 70% for a DP system. Theoretically, it's possible to go higher, but it's a lot of extra programing for relatively little gain and not all tasks can be threaded.
There is a massive existing market for parallel ATA. All the computers with parallel aren't going to disappear overnight when someone starts shipping serial. It'l be a few years before the market for parallel decreases sufficiently for your worries to be relevant.
2) - Dual rpocessors give a 70% speed increase at best. Few programs are optimised for them so the biggest benefit you get is when running multiple programs, so going with a 30% increase would be a tad more realistc.
3) - If you really wanted to be conservative, you should be taking the 1.4, rather than the 1.8.
4) - This gives a 'conservative' estimate of 1.4*2.25*1.3 = 4 Ghz roughly (before anyone objets that this is too high, read my next paragraph).
5) - If you think that even your 'conservative' numbers hold for every situation and that speed is limited purely by the CPU speed, then you can't make any sense of what is important about the 970. The extra speed is nice. It should put us on a par with P4s again. It's new bus architecture and better ability to further scale the speed that are going to make the real difference however. It's when you realise that we can start using faster memory, aren't starving the chips of data and can speed the chip up more than once (or twice if we're really lucky) a year that you'll see why this is important. anyone remember the fiuasco with the 500 MHz G4s? How long were we stuck with them as the top end? That, in my mind, is the turning point where we gave the speed crown to Intel and Motorola gave up.
I can't believe you were modded up for that. Apple can quite happily continue for several years taking losses, given the amount of money they have. In fact, they're a profitable company, so that isn't an issue. Their consumer and portable lines are doing well, as is the music related stuff. Talk of Apple disappearing is ridiculous. People will be disappointed, yes, but they're going to ship the 970s some time this year and most people who wantone will wait a few more months if necessary.
Actualy, he reloads the scoped assault rifle after running down the stairs beside where he naded some grunts and tables. But aside from that, yeah, must have been infinite ammo.
The overwhelming majority of sites I visit work just fine with Safari and seems to be true of most peopel I know using it. The newticker at the top of the BBC News site is slow to load and makes Safari grab a huge chunk of memory, but that's the only complaint I have. I trued using Firebird briefly, but it didn't feel right. Not Mac enough. The Gecko challenger to Safari is Camino, which is much more Mac-like than Firebird (though not as much as Safari - although being a alregly Cocoa program, it refuses to work properly with the TextExtras service whcih I use a lot to type in phrases faster).
Safari is ever so slightly ahead on speed, looks, Mac-likeness while Camino is ever so slightly ahead on standards compliance. Feature-wise, they're different but comparable in capability. Both are around the 0.7-0.75 beta region, fairly small and superior to Firebird.
I've gone IE -> OmniWeb -> OmniWeb and Chimera (old version fo Camino) -> Safari (with Camino as backup) and may well jump back to OmniWeb when it hits version 5 with full WebCore (rendering engine of Safari) implemenation and tabs.
Firebird will never be more than a novelty on the Mac as long as Camino is around and Safari is getting bundled with new machines.
Mac OS X is used a combination of NeXT, BSD and a few old mac technologies (mainly the Carbon toolbox API and Classic environment). I has Unix-like features, as its kernel (Mach) and userland are strongly based on two other unices (NeXT and BSD), but doesn't have much to do with Linux. Certinaly doesn't use its kernel. Various apps which run under Linux can be recompiled to run on X and it has a lot of similar features.
The MS excuse is rubbish because there are plenty of other competitors with Safari, the bulk of it (WebCore) is open source and employed by OmniWeb and Konqueror in various forms. As someone else already said, it's just a PR excuse to let them get out of a market that does't mean anything to them anymore.
The problem in Northern Ireland is not Christianity, the problem is terrorists. They use Christianity as an excuse, but anyone who sneaks around shooting people in their homes and blowing up shopping centres is in no way Christian. It's a historica coincidence that the majority of those wishing to reunite with Ireland claim to be Catholic and the majority of those wishing to stay part of the UK claim to be Protestant. The honest truth is that large numbers of them probably don't know much about Christianity, never read the bible and think that either they'll get into heaven for claiming to be a Protestant/Catholic or that it's just about trying to be nice to people.
No consequence? Have tou read the sequels to Ender's Game? His actions have very far reaching conseuqneces. And I wouldn't make claims about who's manipulating who until having read all the books, inlcuding the Shadow Saga. Throws an interesting new light on quite a few things.
One has only to do a Google search; however, you wouldn't click them anyway.
That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.
No, there aren't. Read up.
Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you. Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.
ell, off the top of my head, the whole Lucifer fiasco.
And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?
No, I simply am able to read materials critical of the Bible because I am not biased, having not been raised to believe something without question, and then react amusingly when somebody questions it.
I wasn't raised to not question things. On the contrary, I've faced a heck of a lot of questions that I've gone away, thought about, read up on and answered. Why do you make the assumption that a Christian is incapable of critical thought?
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?
I'm a physics student at Oxford.
There is absolutely no evidence that what the book says is true.
You may not find the evidence convincing but to claim it does not exist merely reveals that you have either not read up on the subject or that you are trolling once again. There is plenty of evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. If they are true, then what Jesus said was true, he is God, the rest of scripture can be trusted and we are given reason to trust Revelation. If you are genuinely interested in reading up on the subject, I'd suggest borrowing the book 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. It's a good starter.
It is just written words, but people are raised to believe in it for no reason other than they are told to. It is much more likely that the book was either misinterpreted, or the writers were eating shrooms out in the desert.
I hardly think that someone who wrote something after a trip on 'shrooms' would be willing to travel the world to preach their vision and be willing to suffer the most excruciating death for it.
However, your narrow worldview will not allow such a thing
Your narrow world view will refuse to accept the idea of an intelligent, critically thinking Christian with reasons to support his faith.
because you are emotionally attached to the idea of a powerful Savior who throws around dinosaur bones to "test your faith."
Why do you assume that I'm a young earth creationist?
For anyone to say the vast majority of the Bible is quite straightforward is to invalidate your entire position.
I'm sorry, but that looks like a spectacular non-sequitur. Care to explain your reasoning behind that?
I could post pages and pages of contradictions, as well as vulgarities and bizarre instructions by your god that includes killing children and raping women. If you choose to follow such a god, have at it.
I doubt you'd have anything I haven't seen before. The raping women bit is what seems to be a bizarre misunderstanding and the killing children bit could refer to a couple of passages, but I suspect is Psalm 137:9 where it is alluding to the seriousness of sin, the absolute destruction that will be faced by anyone who does evil and does not repent and the important of evangelism in order that such actions would not be necessary.
You are right--scholars and historians wouldn't know how to deal with precious, ancient manuscripts, despite that bein
The trouble is that the film acts as if the ideas are very deep and original and it all comes across as trying to be more clever than it really is. Way too pretentious. Should have cut out half the speeches and given us another cool action scene instead. Or mroe Agent Smith. About the only interesting character in the film.
It is well known that the Bible is a hodge-podge of mistranslated pieces of history that have been modified over the years for each era in which it is being interpreted.
Really? You know in debatng circles, that would be known as an appeal to authority suggesting there is no substance to your argument. While there are some erorrs in rtanslation and translaton necessitates interpretation to a degree, there are plenty of good translations that very accurately reflect the original Biblical texts, such as the NRSV or NIV. Would you care to point out where several dozen people with a great deal of experieicen in Hebrew and Greek went wrong with their translations? Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion which your better understanding of ancient languages has provided you with?
The Bible is, indeed, confused and hallucinogenic (the latter likely referring to the fact that many parts of the book actually seem drug-inspired).
Are you talking about Revelaton? If so then take for a moment the assumption that the supernatural exists. Wuldn't it be rather difficult to desribe it in terms of things which exist within nature? And the book's reputation for being a little crazy is vastly overstated. The vast majority of it is quite straightforward and clear with only a couple of chapters having difficult to interpret sections.
Find out sometime why the Church keeps such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls under lock and key (hint: it has something to do with their fear of contradictions).
Or maybe it's to preserve some very valuable pieces of manuscript that are no doubt in a pretty fragile condition?
At least Islam has a book that is incredibly straightforward in contrast,
Most of the Bible is pretty straighforward. What are you struggling with? Maybe I can help. And I'm more interested in following sometihng that is true than something that is simple.
and doesn't have to deal with crusty old white men changing the meanings of things so that they fit their worldviews.
You do realise that most Christians live in Africa/Asia/South America rather than Europe/North America right? Besides, the translations of the Bible are just that - translations, not interpretations. A lot of people take very good translations and misinterpret them, either by fault or design. That doesn't make the translation flawed; it makes the interpreter flawed. What bits of the bible do you think have been rewritten by 'crusty old white men' to change the original meaning?
However, it is clear that organized religion as a whole is a cancer of the planet.
Yeah, it sucks the way the church keeps trying to feed the poor, house the homeless, give to victims of natural disasters, mediate in conflicts, save people's souls. Do you have any other crass generalisations you'd like to level? Why do you have such a low opinion of the church? Is there a genuine issue you'd like to bring up?
Besides, Christianity is not about being part of an institution. It is about entering into a loving relationship with God, repenting of sin, receiving forgiveness and therefore being able to be judged righteous by God and spend eternity rejoicing with him. At its centre are love (for God and an, including our enemies), truth, faithfulness, hope, generousity, kindness, gentleness, etc. A lot of people callin themselves Christians have got this pretty wrong over the course of histroy, but that was their mistake, not Christianity's, so don't blame it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I've seen benchmarks of times taken to render scenes, encode songs, etc. MacWorld labs for instance do them every once in a while. You're happy to take dnetc stats, but not real world benchmarks? In fact, given that you were asking me to look at dnetc stats, why are you so upset that I've looked at other benchmarks?
I take it that you don't actually use a Mac professionally, then...
Did I ever claim to? If you look at my bio, you'll see I'm a physics student, not a graphics designer/moive-maker/professional coder/whatever. I have an iBook/500. If not for the fact that I have to fly btween home and university every couple of months, I'd probably have an iMac, or maybe a low end PowerMac since I've already got a monitor. I certainly can't afford a high-end system with the kind of tools that would use dual processors (iTunes aside). However, I don't need to be one as I can read which allows me to gether information from other people in magazines, on web sites, etc.
God save us from know-nothing wannabes.
What is it you think I want to be? Or are you simply resorting to pointless insults? I mean, really, this isn't as big a deal as you're making it out to be.
Encoding (vidoe and audio), Photoshop and 3-D rendering are significant tasks that utilise multiple processors and I hace seen benchmarks where they can get to around 70%.
Okay, maybe I should have said 'best case for real world use that is applicable to a remotely significant percentage of users then', but I had assumed people would realise that was what I meant.
Wow, someone who reads my sig :^) It's probably my favourite verse and definitely worth remembering, along with the rest of the chapter. Plenty of other awesome verses around it like 8:1-2,18,28-29.
Your Redhat link was a press release saying that they were going to start work on it last year. You haven't provided proof that it actualy has been implemented or that anyone is using it IBM has been quite happy without it so far, the Power4 didn't have it and theres no reaosn to suppose that they would have tacked it on (apparently as an after-thought) unless it was at the request of someone who already has a use for it - Apple.
No, he was satisfied with it last year. That doesn't mean he still is.
Cool, didn't know about that. Have to find a DP machine and try it out now :^)
I've heard conflicting reports about that, most of them saying it's less than 100%.
Very true. Leaving an encoder/renderer/compiler running full blast on one CPU and still being to get a responsive system out of the other is great.
That's only a theoretical maximum. The real world maximum we're seeing at the moment is around 70%.
If you're compiling a kernel, am I to assume you're not doing it under MacOS X? Becasue unless you are, the comment isn't hugely relevant.
We're not talking best case, we're talking best real world case. And dentc isn't a real world application.
What aobut the dnetc scores? If you have a point to make, say ti rather than asking me to go find your argument for you. Besides which, dnetc isn't hugely applicable to real world computer use.
He didn't say 'if nothing interesting happens, they're dead,' but rather 'if there are no 970's, they're dead' which is rubbish because Apple makes more than just professional Macs, they've plenty of cash and there can be interesting things happening aside from the 970.
They wouldn't think it's okay, but Apple survived the Amelio era, haemorrhaging billions, yet still being alive. They're considerably healthier now than they were then.
A define profitable as them saying in their quarterly financial statements that they're making a profit.
The Velocity Engine is in the 970 so it's pretty clear that Apple is going to be using it and we know that if IBM hasn't already started volume production of the 970 but now, they will before the end of the year. If they didn't and Apple didn't have another good chip to switch to, then there would likely be sufficient bad publicity and loss of faith from professionals to cause them serious problems, but the WWDC is not the turning point.
When did I say questioning Apple was flamebait? I think he was being over-dramatic and got modded up for it, but I wouldn't say it was flame bait and neither is your post. I think your point about profitability is valid for instance. Just because some people are zealots doesn't mean all are.
Hmm, I've never sene iTunes rip more than one track at a time. I'm pretty sure it always just rips one and uses both processors for it. And I've never seen a benchmark where speed increases are more than 70% for a DP system. Theoretically, it's possible to go higher, but it's a lot of extra programing for relatively little gain and not all tasks can be threaded.
At the moment, you're not realistically going to see anything better than around 70%.
There is a massive existing market for parallel ATA. All the computers with parallel aren't going to disappear overnight when someone starts shipping serial. It'l be a few years before the market for parallel decreases sufficiently for your worries to be relevant.
2) - Dual rpocessors give a 70% speed increase at best. Few programs are optimised for them so the biggest benefit you get is when running multiple programs, so going with a 30% increase would be a tad more realistc.
3) - If you really wanted to be conservative, you should be taking the 1.4, rather than the 1.8.
4) - This gives a 'conservative' estimate of 1.4*2.25*1.3 = 4 Ghz roughly (before anyone objets that this is too high, read my next paragraph).
5) - If you think that even your 'conservative' numbers hold for every situation and that speed is limited purely by the CPU speed, then you can't make any sense of what is important about the 970. The extra speed is nice. It should put us on a par with P4s again. It's new bus architecture and better ability to further scale the speed that are going to make the real difference however. It's when you realise that we can start using faster memory, aren't starving the chips of data and can speed the chip up more than once (or twice if we're really lucky) a year that you'll see why this is important. anyone remember the fiuasco with the 500 MHz G4s? How long were we stuck with them as the top end? That, in my mind, is the turning point where we gave the speed crown to Intel and Motorola gave up.
I can't believe you were modded up for that. Apple can quite happily continue for several years taking losses, given the amount of money they have. In fact, they're a profitable company, so that isn't an issue. Their consumer and portable lines are doing well, as is the music related stuff. Talk of Apple disappearing is ridiculous. People will be disappointed, yes, but they're going to ship the 970s some time this year and most people who wantone will wait a few more months if necessary.
Actualy, he reloads the scoped assault rifle after running down the stairs beside where he naded some grunts and tables. But aside from that, yeah, must have been infinite ammo.
Safari is ever so slightly ahead on speed, looks, Mac-likeness while Camino is ever so slightly ahead on standards compliance. Feature-wise, they're different but comparable in capability. Both are around the 0.7-0.75 beta region, fairly small and superior to Firebird.
I've gone IE -> OmniWeb -> OmniWeb and Chimera (old version fo Camino) -> Safari (with Camino as backup) and may well jump back to OmniWeb when it hits version 5 with full WebCore (rendering engine of Safari) implemenation and tabs.
Firebird will never be more than a novelty on the Mac as long as Camino is around and Safari is getting bundled with new machines.
The MS excuse is rubbish because there are plenty of other competitors with Safari, the bulk of it (WebCore) is open source and employed by OmniWeb and Konqueror in various forms. As someone else already said, it's just a PR excuse to let them get out of a market that does't mean anything to them anymore.
The problem in Northern Ireland is not Christianity, the problem is terrorists. They use Christianity as an excuse, but anyone who sneaks around shooting people in their homes and blowing up shopping centres is in no way Christian. It's a historica coincidence that the majority of those wishing to reunite with Ireland claim to be Catholic and the majority of those wishing to stay part of the UK claim to be Protestant. The honest truth is that large numbers of them probably don't know much about Christianity, never read the bible and think that either they'll get into heaven for claiming to be a Protestant/Catholic or that it's just about trying to be nice to people.
Sweet. Going an order of magntidue faster than the official site. Nice one.
No consequence? Have tou read the sequels to Ender's Game? His actions have very far reaching conseuqneces. And I wouldn't make claims about who's manipulating who until having read all the books, inlcuding the Shadow Saga. Throws an interesting new light on quite a few things.
That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.
Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you. Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.
And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?
I wasn't raised to not question things. On the contrary, I've faced a heck of a lot of questions that I've gone away, thought about, read up on and answered. Why do you make the assumption that a Christian is incapable of critical thought?
I'm a physics student at Oxford.
You may not find the evidence convincing but to claim it does not exist merely reveals that you have either not read up on the subject or that you are trolling once again. There is plenty of evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. If they are true, then what Jesus said was true, he is God, the rest of scripture can be trusted and we are given reason to trust Revelation. If you are genuinely interested in reading up on the subject, I'd suggest borrowing the book 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. It's a good starter.
I hardly think that someone who wrote something after a trip on 'shrooms' would be willing to travel the world to preach their vision and be willing to suffer the most excruciating death for it.
Your narrow world view will refuse to accept the idea of an intelligent, critically thinking Christian with reasons to support his faith.
Why do you assume that I'm a young earth creationist?
I'm sorry, but that looks like a spectacular non-sequitur. Care to explain your reasoning behind that?
I doubt you'd have anything I haven't seen before. The raping women bit is what seems to be a bizarre misunderstanding and the killing children bit could refer to a couple of passages, but I suspect is Psalm 137:9 where it is alluding to the seriousness of sin, the absolute destruction that will be faced by anyone who does evil and does not repent and the important of evangelism in order that such actions would not be necessary.
The trouble is that the film acts as if the ideas are very deep and original and it all comes across as trying to be more clever than it really is. Way too pretentious. Should have cut out half the speeches and given us another cool action scene instead. Or mroe Agent Smith. About the only interesting character in the film.
Really? You know in debatng circles, that would be known as an appeal to authority suggesting there is no substance to your argument. While there are some erorrs in rtanslation and translaton necessitates interpretation to a degree, there are plenty of good translations that very accurately reflect the original Biblical texts, such as the NRSV or NIV. Would you care to point out where several dozen people with a great deal of experieicen in Hebrew and Greek went wrong with their translations? Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion which your better understanding of ancient languages has provided you with?
Are you talking about Revelaton? If so then take for a moment the assumption that the supernatural exists. Wuldn't it be rather difficult to desribe it in terms of things which exist within nature? And the book's reputation for being a little crazy is vastly overstated. The vast majority of it is quite straightforward and clear with only a couple of chapters having difficult to interpret sections.
Or maybe it's to preserve some very valuable pieces of manuscript that are no doubt in a pretty fragile condition?
Most of the Bible is pretty straighforward. What are you struggling with? Maybe I can help. And I'm more interested in following sometihng that is true than something that is simple.
You do realise that most Christians live in Africa/Asia/South America rather than Europe/North America right? Besides, the translations of the Bible are just that - translations, not interpretations. A lot of people take very good translations and misinterpret them, either by fault or design. That doesn't make the translation flawed; it makes the interpreter flawed. What bits of the bible do you think have been rewritten by 'crusty old white men' to change the original meaning?
Yeah, it sucks the way the church keeps trying to feed the poor, house the homeless, give to victims of natural disasters, mediate in conflicts, save people's souls. Do you have any other crass generalisations you'd like to level? Why do you have such a low opinion of the church? Is there a genuine issue you'd like to bring up?
Besides, Christianity is not about being part of an institution. It is about entering into a loving relationship with God, repenting of sin, receiving forgiveness and therefore being able to be judged righteous by God and spend eternity rejoicing with him. At its centre are love (for God and an, including our enemies), truth, faithfulness, hope, generousity, kindness, gentleness, etc. A lot of people callin themselves Christians have got this pretty wrong over the course of histroy, but that was their mistake, not Christianity's, so don't blame it.