Personally I'd love to have a CPU architecture that fully departs from the x86 designs, whether it be 32 bit or 64 bit
Have you ever heard of these machines called...ahh...what was it...ummm...APPLE!?
Seriously though, OSX is already a *nix, and from what I understand you can run a number of flavours of Linux ( Yellow Dog is one...) in/under/over/though OSX which means you can still do things like use the dvd reader/burner and use the firewire port etc, etc. If you're not with in Apple's price market, you could always buy an old cheapy one and run Linux on it without the OSX overhead. Or even build your own.
Also it looks like you would have the option of 64bit architecture within 6 months or so (courtesy of IBM's PPC 970). And although there wouldn't be any 64bit apps to start with, how long would it take the Linux masses to fix that?
ps - please don't give me any grief like "we don't need 64bit - it's only for GODS - not meer mortals like us" because you people can just go a use your AI/particle renderer/speech recognition/hand writing recognition/bloody mp3-4 player on that AT286 over there - ok?
Futile futile futile, I know...since most of/. are by now refreshing the front page constantly so they can try and post first on the next topic to appear....anyway:
I think most people have missed the point to this topic, and have rushed to the defence of beloved Google, informing us how to - and : and & and whatever to refine our searches.
The point raised is that it may be possible for a small number of people to subvert any searchable term - in a fairly short time - by working the pagerank system.
Most posters who suggest that you can simply use Google's (excellent) filtering and logic abilities to cut the cr!p out are really just reinforcing this the articles suggestion...by applying a filter, you have to know what you want to be filtering out! And lets face it - if you're searching for a term for the first time, that you are unfamilar with, how many people filter? What do you filter with?
In the example in the article (and this is what it is, not some leftist whinging - you can tell this if you actually read the words) a keyword to a specific body of information which was not widely known but was reasonably well defined, was replaced by a completely different body of information in one month! WTF?!
It's been worrying me now for a while that Google ranks ideas (yes, those things you search, are all some form of idea) by popularity...not relevence. You all know that popular things are not mostly relevent. Hands up all S-Club 7 listeners. Touche.
Re:How the heck do you pronounce "Qatar"?
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
closest without phonetics that western colonial scum like us should be able to get (ascii phonetics, anyone?) is ka'-tar. Like most places the locals say it very fast - catar.
This is when everyone's speaking english though - I'm not sure if it's the same in arabic.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that be massively parallel posting? a.
Have you ever heard of these machines called...ahh...what was it...ummm...APPLE!?
Seriously though, OSX is already a *nix, and from what I understand you can run a number of flavours of Linux ( Yellow Dog is one...) in/under/over/though OSX which means you can still do things like use the dvd reader/burner and use the firewire port etc, etc. If you're not with in Apple's price market, you could always buy an old cheapy one and run Linux on it without the OSX overhead. Or even build your own.
Also it looks like you would have the option of 64bit architecture within 6 months or so (courtesy of IBM's PPC 970). And although there wouldn't be any 64bit apps to start with, how long would it take the Linux masses to fix that?
ps - please don't give me any grief like "we don't need 64bit - it's only for GODS - not meer mortals like us" because you people can just go a use your AI/particle renderer/speech recognition/hand writing recognition/bloody mp3-4 player on that AT286 over there - ok?
I think most people have missed the point to this topic, and have rushed to the defence of beloved Google, informing us how to - and : and & and whatever to refine our searches.
The point raised is that it may be possible for a small number of people to subvert any searchable term - in a fairly short time - by working the pagerank system.
Most posters who suggest that you can simply use Google's (excellent) filtering and logic abilities to cut the cr!p out are really just reinforcing this the articles suggestion...by applying a filter, you have to know what you want to be filtering out! And lets face it - if you're searching for a term for the first time, that you are unfamilar with, how many people filter? What do you filter with?
In the example in the article (and this is what it is, not some leftist whinging - you can tell this if you actually read the words) a keyword to a specific body of information which was not widely known but was reasonably well defined, was replaced by a completely different body of information in one month! WTF?!
It's been worrying me now for a while that Google ranks ideas (yes, those things you search, are all some form of idea) by popularity...not relevence. You all know that popular things are not mostly relevent. Hands up all S-Club 7 listeners. Touche.
closest without phonetics that western colonial scum like us should be able to get (ascii phonetics, anyone?) is ka'-tar. Like most places the locals say it very fast - catar. This is when everyone's speaking english though - I'm not sure if it's the same in arabic.
And you certainly don't see the Daily Mirror site being hacked, do you?
(bottom of page...)
But it's probably all just paranoia anyways. Hard enough to load BBC news sites these days :[