It seems quite possible that Apple wanted vindication for their benchmark "fiasco" (perhaps too strong a word, so forgive me), and this third-party (NASA) with a previous investment in the G4 (the super computer!) might have produced results they favor. I'm not sure I would say that these are nearly as biased (they didn't go out of the way to make the G5 score better this time), and perhaps it's entirely possible they only have licenses for that particular FORTRAN compiler. I don't know, really. There may be sufficient reason to criticize the methodology of the testing for anyone naive enough to consider this an effective comparison of the P4 to the G5 (neither compiler was necessarily the best for its platform), but I personally don't see sufficient evidence to say that the people responsible acted with any intentional bias, unlike what is routinely seen from Apple marketing campaigns.
I realize that Slashdot is in perpetual advertisement for Apple, but I think the userbase is best served by waiting until large numbers of people can provide benchmarks for comparison. Indulging in replying to the trolling that the editors provide is just a waste of energy at this point.
You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
And a 2.66GHz P4 barely edged out the 2GHz G5 in scalar floating-point operations, a task it isn't even particularly good at per-clock. If you read the great-grandparent, I think you'll notice that he mentioned the dual CPU score of the G5. So while you're reading the fucking article, you can consider reading the fucking comments, too.
It seems quite possible that Apple wanted vindication for their benchmark "fiasco" (perhaps too strong a word, so forgive me), and this third-party (NASA) with a previous investment in the G4 (the super computer!) might have produced results they favor. I'm not sure I would say that these are nearly as biased (they didn't go out of the way to make the G5 score better this time), and perhaps it's entirely possible they only have licenses for that particular FORTRAN compiler. I don't know, really. There may be sufficient reason to criticize the methodology of the testing for anyone naive enough to consider this an effective comparison of the P4 to the G5 (neither compiler was necessarily the best for its platform), but I personally don't see sufficient evidence to say that the people responsible acted with any intentional bias, unlike what is routinely seen from Apple marketing campaigns.
I realize that Slashdot is in perpetual advertisement for Apple, but I think the userbase is best served by waiting until large numbers of people can provide benchmarks for comparison. Indulging in replying to the trolling that the editors provide is just a waste of energy at this point.
If IBM cannot scale the clock-speed of the G5 with the ease with which Intel can scale the clock-speed of the P4, it doesn't necessarily matter how efficient it is per-clock. The Opteron performs better per-clock than the G5, but if AMD cannot scale its clock-speed, it too will have fairly little to brag about when Intel still manages to produce better results.
To be honest, x87 floating-point operations aren't even what the P4 is strongest at. While I'm certainly pleased to see that consumers of Macs will soon be able to purchase more competitive processors in their computers, I'll leave the majority of my perceptions to after they've been sold in sufficient quantities that I can see a variety of results.
And a 2.66GHz P4 barely edged out the 2GHz G5 in scalar floating-point operations, a task it isn't even particularly good at per-clock. If you read the great-grandparent, I think you'll notice that he mentioned the dual CPU score of the G5. So while you're reading the fucking article, you can consider reading the fucking comments, too.
There is an endless supply of ignorant, overzealous, whiny prats in the vocal userbase of free software. I don't find it unusual, but I think it would be naive to consider it proportional to the number of vocal users. I can certainly understand the egos of relatively inept people causing certain developers to abandon their charitable efforts.
Re:What are you gonna do
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Tell me where you work, and I'll come by the next time I'm in the city.
Re:What are you gonna do
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
HanzoSan would need to actually have a job in order to lose it.
The brain is not a muscle. Tell cancer patients to try harder. Maybe retarded children should try harder. Maybe if you tried harder, you wouldn't be such an unintelligent, ignorant boob. I tend to doubt it. It must be fairly disappointing to live a life where this is how you spend your time.
Why are you talking to me, HanzoSan? What does this have to do with you?
Standardized tests? You are going to judge him by his tests?
I want to see them. He claims to have them, and I asked him if he wanted to provide them.
Some of the things he mentioned however are valid because I have had some of the same experiences
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
getting high IQ scores
Provide scans of your results.
Instead of asking him what his test scores are, find out his GPA
I don't care about his academic performance. Go away, HanzoSan. Spend the time you use being wrong on Slashdot all of the time, doing something. Take more than two classes at your community college.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Cancer patients just aren't trying hard enough, eh? Thanks for replacing medical science with your unimaginative philosophy, worthless anecdote, and serious denial problem.
Only on Slashdot could an AC's anecdotal hogwash obtain a score of 5. Congrats, you've just modded up a troll that intentionally spelled "jealous" incorrectly, multiple times, while indicating that someone with a medical degree was inferior. You all deserve a nice big pat on your back for pushing this crap to the top of everyone's view.
You think maybe the way I talk to forum trolls may be different than the way I talk to people I like or deal with.
Is that a question or a statement? Frankly, it concerns me little how you choose to rationalize your behavior. From your posting to your "resume," you present yourself in such a manner that I find disappointing.
Get a job, stop feeling sorry for yourself, and spend less time chasing delusions of bettering humanity's medical condition with videogames.
I've had the misfortune of reading your bizarre train of reasoning and absurd behavior, and I can't help but feel that the quality of a CMU education has either dropped, or you're an especially unfortunate anomaly.
Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.
The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows
1. Demonstrate that "Linux vs Windows" is an example of the aforementioned scenario.
2. Show that if "Linux vs Windows" is an example, that any and/or all results are applicable to all assets in an information economy.
3. As you imply for your statement to be considered a response to the aforementioned claim for proof, and imply that such proof is existent, demonstrate a proof of the economic superiority of the aforementioned model of distribution.
Linux has advanced this quickly
Linux has been in development for almost twelve years, and many parts of its userland even longer.
because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.
Companies that also have proprietary sources of revenue.
You didn't mention some of the other names, though, that have contributed code, money, or expansive technical information like Intel, IBM, Compaq, HP, CMI, and more. Companies that have no qualms with, or outright desire to make a commodity of operating systems, or the software market altogether. Companies that rely extensively on intellectual property protections for their own sources of income. Do you see Intel or IBM calling for the removal of intellectual property protections, citing a better economic result as their motivation? Do you even see RedHat doing that?
Redhat is profiting
I really hope you can do better than this, although I would be entirely interested in an explanation as to why you believe that this is evidence demonstrating the benefits of removing intellectual property protection.
And while I think your childish obsession with comparing Windows and Linux as a means of determining the success of such a model is more than a little cliche and incredibly useless, you can always take a look at how big a failure Microsoft is in comparison to RedHat. If you could even relate RedHat to your ideology, which is rather suspect at the least, you would probably do better to find a better example.
and other companies are trying to profit
Would that be more like MandrakeSoft, or more like VA Linux Systems/VA Software?
programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.
The number of programmers responsible for selling, rather than producing code, is anecdotally small. Intellectual property protections are most often used in either scenario.
This does benefit the user because we get better software
Do we? This certainly seems subjective to me. It hardly matters, however. It also doesn't lend any support to your ideology.
Hey I'm not saying people should not be paid to produce information. I'm saying once engineers create a design and get paid for creating it, the design is free.
Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.
What matters more, a few car designers or society in general?
This is the same question. Engineers responsible for the components of an automobile, and the design of the automobile itself are the creators of the potential benefit of society. A magic duplication ray doesn't provide the world with automobiles, engineering that requires considerable effort does. These people require incentive and a means of being compensated for their work. Intellectual property protection provides a social contract in which the benefits of others' work is provided prior to full compensation for their work. Companies exchange salaries for these investments by means of employment.
Provide evidence that the results of revoking this social contract will provide a greater benefit.
IF these new cars use hydrogen fuel cells and other new technologies suddenly our enviornment would be cleaner, this benefits everyone.
Hydrogen fuel cells aren't magical. You need to produce the materials -- which requires energy. Stay on topic. Stop trying to lend support to your beliefs through unrelated proposed benefits.
P2P and File sharing benefits more people than it hurts
You haven't demonstrated that copyright infringement doesn't hurt the same people that you believe it benefits.
Consider the fact that the majority of people choose to share files. 43 million is alot of people. This leads me to believe that alot of people support file sharing and to these people sharing is more important than copyright.
43M is neither the majority of the U.S. nor the majority of the U.S. population that uses the Internet. I'm not even certain I find their means of determining this number sound, but I'll simply accept it because it doesn't matter.
Let's just say that you can infer that from their actions these people believe that personally engaging in copyright infringement is more important to them than abiding by the law. From there, develop a train of thought that concludes any personal opinion about copyright protection.
Sharing at this point actually is helping progress
Demonstrate that copyright infringement is accelerating the "progression of society."
The software industry is abusing copyright, and monopolies, price fixing and other issues actually cause alot of people who would willingly pay for m usic and movies to start file sharing.
1. Demonstrate that the software industry is a monopoly.
2. Demonstrate that the software industry engages in "price fixing."
3. Demonstrate how points 1 and 2, if true, results in increased copyright infringement with regard to music and video industries.
Democracy is built upon mob rule, not $ rule. Why shouldnt the people have influence at least in the laws?
The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. If it suits you to refer to this as an indirect democracy, you can tickle yourself pink doing so. However, that is not mob rule.
Show where I stated that the population of a Government should not have an influence on its laws.
Rampant copyright infringement has assuredly had an influence on the decisions of law makers, and it will no doubt only continue to do so. The effect is certainly the opposite of the one you intend, so I will take you insistance of this as an answer to my question as to whether or not you're engaging in self-destructive mental masturbation. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"
File sharing, the internet, and all of this stuff was built to increase freedom
The recent round of popular file transfer programs has been aimed at reducing the cost of engaging in copyright infringement. If you wish to refer to increases in efficiency as providing "freedom," then you certainly consider DNS, increases in processor speed, and better compression algorithms as all providing "freedom." You also must consider advances in guns, caustic weapon agents, and sedatives as all increasing one's "freedom" for killing, killing, and engaging in date rape respectively. I am perfectly willing to accept the usage of "increase freedom" to refer to increases in efficiency, just be sure you don't confuse this with any Government enforced "freedom."
I think instead of fighting progress we should adapt our laws to the new world we are in.
We aren't in a "new world," we're in the same world we've always been in, only we have increased our ability and the efficiency of transfering information. We have been adapting laws to coincide with this evolution for decades. Just as the social contract of copyright has been modified to reflect the value of information in post-industrial society, it and other laws have been adapted to deal with violators of the law. They may very frequently not reflect what you want them to be, and so you view them as "going backwards," or "removing your freedom," or "not progressing." Your naivete, ideological blindness, and your laziness almost assure that you will have little ability to avoid an equilibrium between legal and private protection and violation, to create the scenario you desire.
You cannot use laws designed for the old world in the new world
Is it really your position that every technological advancement somehow
Slashdot Mirror
It seems quite possible that Apple wanted vindication for their benchmark "fiasco" (perhaps too strong a word, so forgive me), and this third-party (NASA) with a previous investment in the G4 (the super computer!) might have produced results they favor. I'm not sure I would say that these are nearly as biased (they didn't go out of the way to make the G5 score better this time), and perhaps it's entirely possible they only have licenses for that particular FORTRAN compiler. I don't know, really. There may be sufficient reason to criticize the methodology of the testing for anyone naive enough to consider this an effective comparison of the P4 to the G5 (neither compiler was necessarily the best for its platform), but I personally don't see sufficient evidence to say that the people responsible acted with any intentional bias, unlike what is routinely seen from Apple marketing campaigns.
I realize that Slashdot is in perpetual advertisement for Apple, but I think the userbase is best served by waiting until large numbers of people can provide benchmarks for comparison. Indulging in replying to the trolling that the editors provide is just a waste of energy at this point. You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
No, silly zealots, you can't censor me.
And a 2.66GHz P4 barely edged out the 2GHz G5 in scalar floating-point operations, a task it isn't even particularly good at per-clock. If you read the great-grandparent, I think you'll notice that he mentioned the dual CPU score of the G5. So while you're reading the fucking article, you can consider reading the fucking comments, too.
Apple zealots, I have all the time in the world.
It seems quite possible that Apple wanted vindication for their benchmark "fiasco" (perhaps too strong a word, so forgive me), and this third-party (NASA) with a previous investment in the G4 (the super computer!) might have produced results they favor. I'm not sure I would say that these are nearly as biased (they didn't go out of the way to make the G5 score better this time), and perhaps it's entirely possible they only have licenses for that particular FORTRAN compiler. I don't know, really. There may be sufficient reason to criticize the methodology of the testing for anyone naive enough to consider this an effective comparison of the P4 to the G5 (neither compiler was necessarily the best for its platform), but I personally don't see sufficient evidence to say that the people responsible acted with any intentional bias, unlike what is routinely seen from Apple marketing campaigns.
I realize that Slashdot is in perpetual advertisement for Apple, but I think the userbase is best served by waiting until large numbers of people can provide benchmarks for comparison. Indulging in replying to the trolling that the editors provide is just a waste of energy at this point.
If IBM cannot scale the clock-speed of the G5 with the ease with which Intel can scale the clock-speed of the P4, it doesn't necessarily matter how efficient it is per-clock. The Opteron performs better per-clock than the G5, but if AMD cannot scale its clock-speed, it too will have fairly little to brag about when Intel still manages to produce better results.
To be honest, x87 floating-point operations aren't even what the P4 is strongest at. While I'm certainly pleased to see that consumers of Macs will soon be able to purchase more competitive processors in their computers, I'll leave the majority of my perceptions to after they've been sold in sufficient quantities that I can see a variety of results.
And a 2.66GHz P4 barely edged out the 2GHz G5 in scalar floating-point operations, a task it isn't even particularly good at per-clock. If you read the great-grandparent, I think you'll notice that he mentioned the dual CPU score of the G5. So while you're reading the fucking article, you can consider reading the fucking comments, too.
There is an endless supply of ignorant, overzealous, whiny prats in the vocal userbase of free software. I don't find it unusual, but I think it would be naive to consider it proportional to the number of vocal users. I can certainly understand the egos of relatively inept people causing certain developers to abandon their charitable efforts.
Tell me where you work, and I'll come by the next time I'm in the city.
HanzoSan would need to actually have a job in order to lose it.
Java was doing a fine job of making Java look bad, all on its own.
Grow a pair, zealot, and don't hide behind AC posting.
You definitely lose.
And I will continue to buy them, whether they release source code or not.
The brain is not a muscle. Tell cancer patients to try harder. Maybe retarded children should try harder. Maybe if you tried harder, you wouldn't be such an unintelligent, ignorant boob. I tend to doubt it. It must be fairly disappointing to live a life where this is how you spend your time.
Why are you talking to me, HanzoSan? What does this have to do with you?
Standardized tests? You are going to judge him by his tests?
I want to see them. He claims to have them, and I asked him if he wanted to provide them.
Some of the things he mentioned however are valid because I have had some of the same experiences
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
getting high IQ scores
Provide scans of your results.
Instead of asking him what his test scores are, find out his GPA
I don't care about his academic performance. Go away, HanzoSan. Spend the time you use being wrong on Slashdot all of the time, doing something. Take more than two classes at your community college.
Cancer patients just aren't trying hard enough, eh? Thanks for replacing medical science with your unimaginative philosophy, worthless anecdote, and serious denial problem.
Another boring troll shill provided to you by someone with too much free time.
Care to scan your standardized test scores and provide them for viewing by the audience?
Only on Slashdot could an AC's anecdotal hogwash obtain a score of 5. Congrats, you've just modded up a troll that intentionally spelled "jealous" incorrectly, multiple times, while indicating that someone with a medical degree was inferior. You all deserve a nice big pat on your back for pushing this crap to the top of everyone's view.
"Alan Patridge" is a troll. You really don't need to go to great lengths to defend yourself against him.
You think maybe the way I talk to forum trolls may be different than the way I talk to people I like or deal with.
Is that a question or a statement? Frankly, it concerns me little how you choose to rationalize your behavior. From your posting to your "resume," you present yourself in such a manner that I find disappointing.
Get a job, stop feeling sorry for yourself, and spend less time chasing delusions of bettering humanity's medical condition with videogames.
I've had the misfortune of reading your bizarre train of reasoning and absurd behavior, and I can't help but feel that the quality of a CMU education has either dropped, or you're an especially unfortunate anomaly.
Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.
The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows
1. Demonstrate that "Linux vs Windows" is an example of the aforementioned scenario.
2. Show that if "Linux vs Windows" is an example, that any and/or all results are applicable to all assets in an information economy.
3. As you imply for your statement to be considered a response to the aforementioned claim for proof, and imply that such proof is existent, demonstrate a proof of the economic superiority of the aforementioned model of distribution.
Linux has advanced this quickly
Linux has been in development for almost twelve years, and many parts of its userland even longer. because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.
Companies that also have proprietary sources of revenue.
You didn't mention some of the other names, though, that have contributed code, money, or expansive technical information like Intel, IBM, Compaq, HP, CMI, and more. Companies that have no qualms with, or outright desire to make a commodity of operating systems, or the software market altogether. Companies that rely extensively on intellectual property protections for their own sources of income. Do you see Intel or IBM calling for the removal of intellectual property protections, citing a better economic result as their motivation? Do you even see RedHat doing that?
Redhat is profiting
I really hope you can do better than this, although I would be entirely interested in an explanation as to why you believe that this is evidence demonstrating the benefits of removing intellectual property protection.
And while I think your childish obsession with comparing Windows and Linux as a means of determining the success of such a model is more than a little cliche and incredibly useless, you can always take a look at how big a failure Microsoft is in comparison to RedHat. If you could even relate RedHat to your ideology, which is rather suspect at the least, you would probably do better to find a better example.
and other companies are trying to profit
Would that be more like MandrakeSoft, or more like VA Linux Systems/VA Software?
programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.
The number of programmers responsible for selling, rather than producing code, is anecdotally small. Intellectual property protections are most often used in either scenario.
This does benefit the user because we get better software
Do we? This certainly seems subjective to me. It hardly matters, however. It also doesn't lend any support to your ideology.
the wheel isnt constantly reinvented
The is constantly reinvented, on this planet where is your
Hey I'm not saying people should not be paid to produce information. I'm saying once engineers create a design and get paid for creating it, the design is free.
Except that your model does not permit for the exchange of their information prior to the full payment for their design. As a consumer you are not permitted to know anything about their design, until they have been sufficiently compensated. You haven't shown that this model is superior.
What matters more, a few car designers or society in general?
This is the same question. Engineers responsible for the components of an automobile, and the design of the automobile itself are the creators of the potential benefit of society. A magic duplication ray doesn't provide the world with automobiles, engineering that requires considerable effort does. These people require incentive and a means of being compensated for their work. Intellectual property protection provides a social contract in which the benefits of others' work is provided prior to full compensation for their work. Companies exchange salaries for these investments by means of employment.
Provide evidence that the results of revoking this social contract will provide a greater benefit.
IF these new cars use hydrogen fuel cells and other new technologies suddenly our enviornment would be cleaner, this benefits everyone.
Hydrogen fuel cells aren't magical. You need to produce the materials -- which requires energy. Stay on topic. Stop trying to lend support to your beliefs through unrelated proposed benefits.
P2P and File sharing benefits more people than it hurts
You haven't demonstrated that copyright infringement doesn't hurt the same people that you believe it benefits.
Consider the fact that the majority of people choose to share files. 43 million is alot of people. This leads me to believe that alot of people support file sharing and to these people sharing is more important than copyright.
43M is neither the majority of the U.S. nor the majority of the U.S. population that uses the Internet. I'm not even certain I find their means of determining this number sound, but I'll simply accept it because it doesn't matter.
Let's just say that you can infer that from their actions these people believe that personally engaging in copyright infringement is more important to them than abiding by the law. From there, develop a train of thought that concludes any personal opinion about copyright protection.
Sharing at this point actually is helping progress
Demonstrate that copyright infringement is accelerating the "progression of society."
The software industry is abusing copyright, and monopolies, price fixing and other issues actually cause alot of people who would willingly pay for m usic and movies to start file sharing.
1. Demonstrate that the software industry is a monopoly.
2. Demonstrate that the software industry engages in "price fixing."
3. Demonstrate how points 1 and 2, if true, results in increased copyright infringement with regard to music and video industries.
Democracy is built upon mob rule, not $ rule. Why shouldnt the people have influence at least in the laws?
The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. If it suits you to refer to this as an indirect democracy, you can tickle yourself pink doing so. However, that is not mob rule.
Show where I stated that the population of a Government should not have an influence on its laws.
Rampant copyright infringement has assuredly had an influence on the decisions of law makers, and it will no doubt only continue to do so. The effect is certainly the opposite of the one you intend, so I will take you insistance of this as an answer to my question as to whether or not you're engaging in self-destructive mental masturbation. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"
File sharing, the internet, and all of this stuff was built to increase freedom
The recent round of popular file transfer programs has been aimed at reducing the cost of engaging in copyright infringement. If you wish to refer to increases in efficiency as providing "freedom," then you certainly consider DNS, increases in processor speed, and better compression algorithms as all providing "freedom." You also must consider advances in guns, caustic weapon agents, and sedatives as all increasing one's "freedom" for killing, killing, and engaging in date rape respectively. I am perfectly willing to accept the usage of "increase freedom" to refer to increases in efficiency, just be sure you don't confuse this with any Government enforced "freedom."
I think instead of fighting progress we should adapt our laws to the new world we are in.
We aren't in a "new world," we're in the same world we've always been in, only we have increased our ability and the efficiency of transfering information. We have been adapting laws to coincide with this evolution for decades. Just as the social contract of copyright has been modified to reflect the value of information in post-industrial society, it and other laws have been adapted to deal with violators of the law. They may very frequently not reflect what you want them to be, and so you view them as "going backwards," or "removing your freedom," or "not progressing." Your naivete, ideological blindness, and your laziness almost assure that you will have little ability to avoid an equilibrium between legal and private protection and violation, to create the scenario you desire.
You cannot use laws designed for the old world in the new world
Is it really your position that every technological advancement somehow