Plus the SE of the first included free movie tickets to the second. I thought that was a damn good deal, and I used them. Here's hoping the SE of the 2nd does the same!
First, there is no $1,600 G5. They start at $1,999, plus the one I outperformed would be the $2399 model. Second, take a look over at www.boxxtech.com. You can compose a dual Opteron system for less than the price of a dual G5. Third, Opteron is better than a Xeon, far better in some respects, so if the G5 can only trade blows with a Xeon, the Opteron will simply beat it.
A couple more things before I leave you to dillusion. The gcc compiler on the Mac is not the same as the gcc compiler for x86. It's another instance of equivocation. Now, if Apple decided that they were going to use the most efficient compiler for both, or the most prevalent compiler for both, that would be a different story, instead they used compilers that are only alike in name only. And with the proper compilers, you could run a benchmark where a 486 comes out on top. Now, I wouldn't use that as a basis for a claim that the 486 is the faster cpu ever, but that's just me. As for Apple's photoshop tests, they've always used very selective filters to showcase their processor, which has, not surprisingly, always shown Apple with a significant performance "edge", and the one that wins it for Apple is RGB to CMYK conversion, which the PowerPC chip is absolutely brilliant at. The problem is that, outside a select few in the print industry, the most experiance anyone has had in RGB to CMYK conversions is running Apple's benchmark. Most independant benchmarks that use the hundreds of other functions not included in Apple's benchmark suite show x86s in the lead. I'm sorry, but you cannot take an single instance where a machine is faster and then use that to claim that the machine is just plain faster overall.
Second, you'll notice in Apple's world AMD does not exist. You may not know this, but they've had a little processor out for a while now called the Opteron. There's a good reason Apple does not recognize AMD's existance. Where the G5 manages to just beat a Xeon, the Opteron utterly trounces a Xeon, and for a lesser cost. If the Opteron existed, there would be no place, aside from RGB to CMYK conversions in Photoshop, that the G5 could claim the performance crown. If the Opteron existed, there would be no doubt that Apple was a dirty, dirty liar in its advertising campaign. It's a good thing that, in Apple's reality distortion field, the Opteron does not exist.
I'm with you up to a point. There is a function for the FCC that is actually good, and that is regulation of the airwaves. Back when radio communications were new and rapidly proliferating, it was not uncommon for two radio stations within close range of each other to broadcast on the same frequency. The result? Neither of them would be heard as their signals interferred. You could have some asshole pump up the wattage on his transmitter and saturate an entire AM band, shutting out every station across the country on that band. With FM, if the FTC wasn't around, I would think it would be possible for someone to get the bright idea that broadening the range of frequencies he modulates would give his transmition better quality, and thus he'd wind up competing with a whole load of other people in neighboring bands. The airwaves do need to be regulated for the same reason we need traffic laws. However, the FTC goes too far and, as you stated, was created illegally as Congress does not have the power to delegate its lawmaking authority under the Constitution. You would think that with as serious a problem as AM interference it wouldn't have been hard to get 3/4ths of the States to agree to an amendment. FM has short enough range that it could probably be handled by the States with arrising disputes settled in Federal court.
Damn, you need to learn about pricewatch. I've speced out machines that run circles around the G5 for $2100, with, amoung other things, a Quadro FX 1000 card (which I could probably get on EBay and knock $300 off the price of the system), a Western Digital Raptor drive, 1 GB ECC DDR400, the case, a Cooler Master Wavemaster, is no cheapy either (and far better looking than the cheese-grater facade of the G5), and this is with a freakin 3Ghz P4. Let me graduate to an Athlon 64 for a $100 more and it'll certainly outpace the single processor systems, and I could probably bring it up to a dual Opteron system with the same price as the dual G5. Keep in mind, Apple systems don't come with monitors in their base configurations, so stop including the price of that 21" LCD panel.
Under the law, luxury car is >= $40,000 in the US. You get more tax on it. Yes, price has everything to do with market segment, and it's not determined by advertising but by, get this, THE MARKET. This is why you don't see dual processor machines advertised for home use, because they're too expensive and for the one segment that would spend the money (gamers) dual processors can even be a hinderance. So, PC makers adapted their advertising to fit the market. Despite this, the people who need the power for their personal use still have easy access to the proper systems. Thus, expense is the MAJOR component in the x86 world that determines how a computer will be marketed. Now, with Apple they handle a completely different market segment than Dell or HP does which has its own rules. This means that Apple's advertisment campaign is guilty of equivocation, switching between the x86 definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of the x86 marketplace, and Apple's definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of Apple's unique marketplace, as if they meant the same thing. It's still false advertising.
And yes they cite workstations on their website because they also target that market with a version of the G5 with more RAM, fiberchanel cards, etc.
Ah, but by your arguement Apple must have a seperate website for you to go to if you want to buy the G5 "Workstation", otherwise it wouldn't be a workstation. However, you can go to www.store.apple.com and notice that there's nothing to distinguish a G5 personal computer from a G5 workstation. Careful! You might buy the wrong one!
But that mid-sized sedan cannot, in fact, have the body of an SUV nor can it only have two doors. There are specifications that classify cars as a sedan. Any car meeting those specs is a sedan regardless of marketing.
You say that you cannot cite a different market segment, but I am not doing that. I'm looking at people who want to spend $2000-3000 (or $4000, still in the range of a G5) for a computer that will run a wide and flexible range of software applications. Whether you call a machine in that range a personal computer or a workstation is neither here nor there as they perform the same function at the same cost. The link you clicked when you bought them does not change what they are.
And again, Apple does feel that it is fair for them to cite a workstations in their ads, so they themselves were the first ones to open this door: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
No, the Bush administration was able to both pass and enforce its policies. Whether or not you agree with them does not make the Bush administration ineffective. It may, however, make the Bush administration dangerous.
Ah, and France, Britain, Russia and China don't have veto powers, and they of course NEVER put preasure on nations. France CERTAINLY wouldn't threaten nations seeking to join the EU or NATO in order to get them to vote their way. What strange alternate reality do you live in?
Except for the fact that I can go to a newegg and buy a dual processor mother boards from a list that mixes them in with single processor mother boards. Now, are you contending that sites like newegg do not cater heavily to personal users?
The enthusiast/do-it-yourself market throws a wrench in advertisment-based categories. Instead, price and capabilities become the things to look at, not what some.jpg image with an href tag says on the internet. Under those metrics, if the G5 is a personal computer, so is your dual Xeon.
You also have to deal with the fact that in its marketing efforts Apple does go and compare it to Xeon based systems, so it can't go and say "don't compare me to a server/workstation" now.
Except that Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution. From Article 1, Section 8;
Congress shall have the power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
You'll note that the internet is only "tax free" when you're not dealing with a vendor in the same state as you. So Congress does have the Constitutional authority to ban internet tax, and this power has been with the Congress since the nation was founded.
It is this same liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that allows the DMCA to make felt tip markers illegal because they circumvent a copyright-protection scheme.
And, believe it or not, this quote still makes as much sense as the original sentence, which isn't very much to begin with. How exactly can having an individual liberty allow a law to curtail that liberty? It's poorly worded so attempting to insert another quote isn't going to improve matters. It should probably read more like this;
It is the abuse of this same liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that prompts legislation like the DMCA to make felt tip markers illegal because they circumvent a copyright-protection scheme.
In this case, though, I would find it appropriate to drop the specification all together and have liberty refer to the general principle that allows one to own items that change stoplights. That's how I interpreted it while reading the post.
Statement:But it is this liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that threatens the very safety of its citizens.
Response:He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for the temporary promise of safety deserves neither liberty nor safety. (I think that's a Ben Franklin quote)
You can see why I would misinterpret your statement.
There's no need to remote control your car, just disable your car from going over the speed limit. If you weren't planning on breaking the law, why should you care about driving that fast? Every speed you were planning on driving at is available isn't it?
Brilliant idea! Now when that truck next to me decides it absolutely positively has to be in the lane I'm in at this very moment, my car will refuse to apply more gas so that I can get out of the way and my car will be smashed, forced off the road, and perhaps totaled! That says nothing for what happens when you're the only car that has this speed-capping device where the speed limit is set at 55 and everyone else is going 80. I wasn't planning on breaking the law, but I sure was planning on living.
What? You actually seek out domain-name squatter sites that serve no purpose other than to try to fill up your available RAM as quickly as possible with pop-up ads? Why???
But as it is written all the 14th does is expand RIGHTS. The only right outlined in the First is the right to peacably assemble. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, none of them have the all important word "right" used to describe them. As I said before, the Constitution is now a meaningless document, especially when you consider that the word "no" in the First Amendment is widely regarded in legal circles NOT to mean NO. Any word or phrase can be reinterpreted in the Constitution to mean something else, even it's opposite. There are no longer any Constitutional garuntees, so it is possible for the First to either be expanded to mean buisnesses the same way it was expanded to include the States or for the First to be tossed out completely as was done with the Second because it does not explicity say it applies to individuals. It's a worthless document now.
First Amendment applies to Congress, which is defined in the Constitution as comprising of a House of Representitives and a Senate. It does not apply to "government", which would include State Legislatures as well. That's how the Constitution is written, but it's a meaningless document anyway in the legal system.
You honestly can't tell me, with a straight face, that darn near every news item reported by any news outlet isn't "slightly" sensationalistic. Now, since I never heard of the facility the first article is talking about in on-air reports, and since the on-air Fox has, on many occasions stated that the mobile labs were not, in fact, mobile labs, that kinda tosses out your second paragraph. As for facts, they're reporting about items of high interest and are describing why those items are of that high interest to an audience that wants to know what their government is looking at. There are plenty of facts in the first and third with regards to that topic, the second is more of a topic starter than a news report, so shouldn't have even been included. Please forgive the 24-hour news station for reporting what's going on at that very moment.
And you don't need to call yourself a gullible viewer, no reason to beat yourself up, just learn from the experiance and listen closer next time.
how many times during the Iraq war did they run a story about WMD being "found"? How many of those stories turned out to be true?
I know! I know! Zero and zero! They've ran many news stories where they've reported that the military/administration believes it may have found something and will release more information latter, they always covered themselves by saying "these are initial indications and most often these are proven wrong," but they've never, as far as I am aware, said "WMDs have been found!" After the administration cried wolf enough on the issue, Fox News stopped reporting them. If you have a link you can provide to a Fox News story that shows differentaly, please provide.
In addition to the ABL the US is creating a missle shield that uses other missiles to shoot down ballistic missles. Again, mirrors may be great for protection against destructive lasers, but now those other anti-missle systems will have a far easier time hitting their target because reflective material only enhances targeting lasers and radar. That's assuming, of course, that such a reflective material can meet the physical requirements for traveling on an ICBM.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh. Some poor mod probably accidentally set it to flamebait and didn't catch it. No biggie.
Plus the SE of the first included free movie tickets to the second. I thought that was a damn good deal, and I used them. Here's hoping the SE of the 2nd does the same!
First, there is no $1,600 G5. They start at $1,999, plus the one I outperformed would be the $2399 model. Second, take a look over at www.boxxtech.com. You can compose a dual Opteron system for less than the price of a dual G5. Third, Opteron is better than a Xeon, far better in some respects, so if the G5 can only trade blows with a Xeon, the Opteron will simply beat it.
A couple more things before I leave you to dillusion. The gcc compiler on the Mac is not the same as the gcc compiler for x86. It's another instance of equivocation. Now, if Apple decided that they were going to use the most efficient compiler for both, or the most prevalent compiler for both, that would be a different story, instead they used compilers that are only alike in name only. And with the proper compilers, you could run a benchmark where a 486 comes out on top. Now, I wouldn't use that as a basis for a claim that the 486 is the faster cpu ever, but that's just me. As for Apple's photoshop tests, they've always used very selective filters to showcase their processor, which has, not surprisingly, always shown Apple with a significant performance "edge", and the one that wins it for Apple is RGB to CMYK conversion, which the PowerPC chip is absolutely brilliant at. The problem is that, outside a select few in the print industry, the most experiance anyone has had in RGB to CMYK conversions is running Apple's benchmark. Most independant benchmarks that use the hundreds of other functions not included in Apple's benchmark suite show x86s in the lead. I'm sorry, but you cannot take an single instance where a machine is faster and then use that to claim that the machine is just plain faster overall.
Second, you'll notice in Apple's world AMD does not exist. You may not know this, but they've had a little processor out for a while now called the Opteron. There's a good reason Apple does not recognize AMD's existance. Where the G5 manages to just beat a Xeon, the Opteron utterly trounces a Xeon, and for a lesser cost. If the Opteron existed, there would be no place, aside from RGB to CMYK conversions in Photoshop, that the G5 could claim the performance crown. If the Opteron existed, there would be no doubt that Apple was a dirty, dirty liar in its advertising campaign. It's a good thing that, in Apple's reality distortion field, the Opteron does not exist.
I'm with you up to a point. There is a function for the FCC that is actually good, and that is regulation of the airwaves. Back when radio communications were new and rapidly proliferating, it was not uncommon for two radio stations within close range of each other to broadcast on the same frequency. The result? Neither of them would be heard as their signals interferred. You could have some asshole pump up the wattage on his transmitter and saturate an entire AM band, shutting out every station across the country on that band. With FM, if the FTC wasn't around, I would think it would be possible for someone to get the bright idea that broadening the range of frequencies he modulates would give his transmition better quality, and thus he'd wind up competing with a whole load of other people in neighboring bands. The airwaves do need to be regulated for the same reason we need traffic laws. However, the FTC goes too far and, as you stated, was created illegally as Congress does not have the power to delegate its lawmaking authority under the Constitution. You would think that with as serious a problem as AM interference it wouldn't have been hard to get 3/4ths of the States to agree to an amendment. FM has short enough range that it could probably be handled by the States with arrising disputes settled in Federal court.
Damn, you need to learn about pricewatch. I've speced out machines that run circles around the G5 for $2100, with, amoung other things, a Quadro FX 1000 card (which I could probably get on EBay and knock $300 off the price of the system), a Western Digital Raptor drive, 1 GB ECC DDR400, the case, a Cooler Master Wavemaster, is no cheapy either (and far better looking than the cheese-grater facade of the G5), and this is with a freakin 3Ghz P4. Let me graduate to an Athlon 64 for a $100 more and it'll certainly outpace the single processor systems, and I could probably bring it up to a dual Opteron system with the same price as the dual G5. Keep in mind, Apple systems don't come with monitors in their base configurations, so stop including the price of that 21" LCD panel.
Under the law, luxury car is >= $40,000 in the US. You get more tax on it. Yes, price has everything to do with market segment, and it's not determined by advertising but by, get this, THE MARKET. This is why you don't see dual processor machines advertised for home use, because they're too expensive and for the one segment that would spend the money (gamers) dual processors can even be a hinderance. So, PC makers adapted their advertising to fit the market. Despite this, the people who need the power for their personal use still have easy access to the proper systems. Thus, expense is the MAJOR component in the x86 world that determines how a computer will be marketed. Now, with Apple they handle a completely different market segment than Dell or HP does which has its own rules. This means that Apple's advertisment campaign is guilty of equivocation, switching between the x86 definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of the x86 marketplace, and Apple's definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of Apple's unique marketplace, as if they meant the same thing. It's still false advertising.
And yes they cite workstations on their website because they also target that market with a version of the G5 with more RAM, fiberchanel cards, etc.
Ah, but by your arguement Apple must have a seperate website for you to go to if you want to buy the G5 "Workstation", otherwise it wouldn't be a workstation. However, you can go to www.store.apple.com and notice that there's nothing to distinguish a G5 personal computer from a G5 workstation. Careful! You might buy the wrong one!
My mistake. A sedan can have two doors, but it must have rear seating.
But that mid-sized sedan cannot, in fact, have the body of an SUV nor can it only have two doors. There are specifications that classify cars as a sedan. Any car meeting those specs is a sedan regardless of marketing.
You say that you cannot cite a different market segment, but I am not doing that. I'm looking at people who want to spend $2000-3000 (or $4000, still in the range of a G5) for a computer that will run a wide and flexible range of software applications. Whether you call a machine in that range a personal computer or a workstation is neither here nor there as they perform the same function at the same cost. The link you clicked when you bought them does not change what they are.
And again, Apple does feel that it is fair for them to cite a workstations in their ads, so they themselves were the first ones to open this door: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
No, the Bush administration was able to both pass and enforce its policies. Whether or not you agree with them does not make the Bush administration ineffective. It may, however, make the Bush administration dangerous.
Ah, and France, Britain, Russia and China don't have veto powers, and they of course NEVER put preasure on nations. France CERTAINLY wouldn't threaten nations seeking to join the EU or NATO in order to get them to vote their way. What strange alternate reality do you live in?
Except for the fact that I can go to a newegg and buy a dual processor mother boards from a list that mixes them in with single processor mother boards. Now, are you contending that sites like newegg do not cater heavily to personal users?
.jpg image with an href tag says on the internet. Under those metrics, if the G5 is a personal computer, so is your dual Xeon.
The enthusiast/do-it-yourself market throws a wrench in advertisment-based categories. Instead, price and capabilities become the things to look at, not what some
You also have to deal with the fact that in its marketing efforts Apple does go and compare it to Xeon based systems, so it can't go and say "don't compare me to a server/workstation" now.
Except that Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution. From Article 1, Section 8;
Congress shall have the power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
You'll note that the internet is only "tax free" when you're not dealing with a vendor in the same state as you. So Congress does have the Constitutional authority to ban internet tax, and this power has been with the Congress since the nation was founded.
First off, do it correctly:
It is this same liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that allows the DMCA to make felt tip markers illegal because they circumvent a copyright-protection scheme.
And, believe it or not, this quote still makes as much sense as the original sentence, which isn't very much to begin with. How exactly can having an individual liberty allow a law to curtail that liberty? It's poorly worded so attempting to insert another quote isn't going to improve matters. It should probably read more like this;
It is the abuse of this same liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that prompts legislation like the DMCA to make felt tip markers illegal because they circumvent a copyright-protection scheme.
In this case, though, I would find it appropriate to drop the specification all together and have liberty refer to the general principle that allows one to own items that change stoplights. That's how I interpreted it while reading the post.
Very well, but let me show you how I read it:
Statement:But it is this liberty [to own items that change stoplights] that threatens the very safety of its citizens.
Response:He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for the temporary promise of safety deserves neither liberty nor safety. (I think that's a Ben Franklin quote)
You can see why I would misinterpret your statement.
Franklin's quote used the word "essential" to qualify "liberty." Is being able to turn a stop light green an essential liberty? I think not.
There's no need to remote control your car, just disable your car from going over the speed limit. If you weren't planning on breaking the law, why should you care about driving that fast? Every speed you were planning on driving at is available isn't it?
Brilliant idea! Now when that truck next to me decides it absolutely positively has to be in the lane I'm in at this very moment, my car will refuse to apply more gas so that I can get out of the way and my car will be smashed, forced off the road, and perhaps totaled! That says nothing for what happens when you're the only car that has this speed-capping device where the speed limit is set at 55 and everyone else is going 80. I wasn't planning on breaking the law, but I sure was planning on living.
What? You actually seek out domain-name squatter sites that serve no purpose other than to try to fill up your available RAM as quickly as possible with pop-up ads? Why???
If they can enforce it they'll make a mint from all those spam/pr0n sites that try to change your homepage settings when you accidentally visit them.
But as it is written all the 14th does is expand RIGHTS. The only right outlined in the First is the right to peacably assemble. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, none of them have the all important word "right" used to describe them. As I said before, the Constitution is now a meaningless document, especially when you consider that the word "no" in the First Amendment is widely regarded in legal circles NOT to mean NO. Any word or phrase can be reinterpreted in the Constitution to mean something else, even it's opposite. There are no longer any Constitutional garuntees, so it is possible for the First to either be expanded to mean buisnesses the same way it was expanded to include the States or for the First to be tossed out completely as was done with the Second because it does not explicity say it applies to individuals. It's a worthless document now.
First Amendment applies to Congress, which is defined in the Constitution as comprising of a House of Representitives and a Senate. It does not apply to "government", which would include State Legislatures as well. That's how the Constitution is written, but it's a meaningless document anyway in the legal system.
You honestly can't tell me, with a straight face, that darn near every news item reported by any news outlet isn't "slightly" sensationalistic. Now, since I never heard of the facility the first article is talking about in on-air reports, and since the on-air Fox has, on many occasions stated that the mobile labs were not, in fact, mobile labs, that kinda tosses out your second paragraph. As for facts, they're reporting about items of high interest and are describing why those items are of that high interest to an audience that wants to know what their government is looking at. There are plenty of facts in the first and third with regards to that topic, the second is more of a topic starter than a news report, so shouldn't have even been included. Please forgive the 24-hour news station for reporting what's going on at that very moment.
And you don't need to call yourself a gullible viewer, no reason to beat yourself up, just learn from the experiance and listen closer next time.
how many times during the Iraq war did they run a story about WMD being "found"? How many of those stories turned out to be true?
I know! I know! Zero and zero! They've ran many news stories where they've reported that the military/administration believes it may have found something and will release more information latter, they always covered themselves by saying "these are initial indications and most often these are proven wrong," but they've never, as far as I am aware, said "WMDs have been found!" After the administration cried wolf enough on the issue, Fox News stopped reporting them. If you have a link you can provide to a Fox News story that shows differentaly, please provide.
I don't know. I'd defer to the physics guys. It's possible.
Wow... dredging up old articles... sure.
In addition to the ABL the US is creating a missle shield that uses other missiles to shoot down ballistic missles. Again, mirrors may be great for protection against destructive lasers, but now those other anti-missle systems will have a far easier time hitting their target because reflective material only enhances targeting lasers and radar. That's assuming, of course, that such a reflective material can meet the physical requirements for traveling on an ICBM.