I agree with that. I want apple to do well. I was really impressed by the G5 yesterday. The cost is exhorbitantly high, but I thought it was worth it. However reading this article today made me think otherwise. I hope apple can compete head to head with intel, but unfortunately I dont think that has happened yet!
I still dont understand. I can claim my rusty old 8086 machine to be the "fastest", and post incomplete performance graphs that dont even conclusively prove that it is "fastest". What I do is write "fastest" at about 50 places on the page, and make the performance graphs needlessly complex so that no one can understand what they clearly mean. That doesnt deserve a pat on the back.
Dont get me wrong. I really admire apple's computers, and had they updated the 15" powerbooks, I was considering getting one myself. I dont really care much for the "fastest"; it should be fast enough to do what I want. But claiming "fastest" when you clearly are not is false advertising. I dont think such actions should be condoned.
Did you even read the article? His main argument is that apple disabled various hardware features on the dell while conducting the tests. They used underpowered compilers, and made various hacks on their own system to boost the performance.
And even then apple's performance was either slightly ahead (floating point) or lagging behind the dell (integer). He then took dell's own performance figures, which are undoubtedly arrived at by using specialized compilers, and hacks in the system to boost performance. But this is only fair, since apple did this in the first place!
I think your post is more of a troll than the article!
How does having one "stupid" comment show taht the article should not be taken seriously? To me the article makes sense. The numbers are in the open. If you dont trust the article, do your own research, and you would come to the same conclusion!
You are looking at only one side of the story. What about people who NEVER buy a copy of linux, and still use it? I guess a VAST majority of people using linux fall in this category. They either download a CD iso, or get it from a friend, or get it with a magazine or book. I have been using linux for about ten years now, am currently running linux on about three machines at home, and have never purchased a licensed copy. Does that mean I would be counted as a non-linux uder?
Not the movies i really want to see. It breaks the continuity and makes you get the wrong impression of the movie. For a big chunk of the trash that is produced by hollywood it makes no difference how and where you watch it.
You should decide what you see. What I meant was that once you decide you want to see a movie, see the complete movie. You are still free to decide what movie to see! I am strongly against movie studios imposing limits or forcing directors to modify the content of the film so that it can cater to the vast audience and/or get them more money. Even most of the director cuts have the same problem. Now add to that people making their own cuts and distributing them. chaos!
Do what you want with your dvd. No one cares about that. But distributing the modified dvd without telling the audience know of the changes you have made is bad.
What I meant (you would have understood if you read the whole thing) was that it is okay for people to see what they like. Fast forward all you want, Skip over the ads, etc. But why would you want to edit a DVD other than for re-distributing it? I would still be okay with people editing DVDs for removing material that they dont want to see each time they see the movie. But what I am _strongly_ against is when someone else watches the re-edited movie without having seen the original, and with no knowledge that this is a re-edited movie. That should be a strict no-no.
"I know that most DVDs have chapter stops. It is my opinion that a film is not like a book - it should not be broken up. It is a continuum and should be seen as such. Thank you for understanding" - David Lynch on why his DVDs have no chapter stops.
I think I would agree with this philosophy. If you dont like parts of a movie, try to live with it.
I cant agree more with you. But I still feel it is for the director to decide what goes into the movie and what doesnt. You may or may not like parts of the movie, but I prefer to look at the movie as a whole.
Same here. I dont know how to feel about this. I am strongly in favor of the director deciding what the viewers see. After all its their movie. Movies are a work of art, and only the director should have the final say of what goes in and what doesnt. (ofcourse, this doesnt apply to crappy movies that dont even need a decent director anyways)
On the other hand, I dont see any reason to stop people from removing parts of a movie that they dont like. Self censorship is best.
But I dont know how I would feel if people started distributing edited DVDs. That becomes gray area for me. Maybe it is good at times (the phantom edit comes to mind). But I am sure that I would not like to see an edited movie before I have seen an unedited virgin print first.
Slashdot Mirror
No, open source is not perfect. But forking is one of the reasons why I use open source! Its all about choice.
but you're reading this site on a sunday, so you probably will...
not be able to access the site
Read the complete page on the link you've posted.
As far as we know, this legend is based upon a true incident.
And I was under the impression RFID is a great thing! I could find the stuff I have lost more easily atleast!
Precisely my reaction. Why do you want to bring up privacy into everything!!??
Both nokia 3650 and 7650 support mp3 playback. You need to buy the application to do it though. Also, music is only mono (hardware limitation)
I agree with that. I want apple to do well. I was really impressed by the G5 yesterday. The cost is exhorbitantly high, but I thought it was worth it. However reading this article today made me think otherwise.
I hope apple can compete head to head with intel, but unfortunately I dont think that has happened yet!
I still dont understand. I can claim my rusty old 8086 machine to be the "fastest", and post incomplete performance graphs that dont even conclusively prove that it is "fastest". What I do is write "fastest" at about 50 places on the page, and make the performance graphs needlessly complex so that no one can understand what they clearly mean. That doesnt deserve a pat on the back.
Dont get me wrong. I really admire apple's computers, and had they updated the 15" powerbooks, I was considering getting one myself. I dont really care much for the "fastest"; it should be fast enough to do what I want. But claiming "fastest" when you clearly are not is false advertising. I dont think such actions should be condoned.
Did you even read the article? His main argument is that apple disabled various hardware features on the dell while conducting the tests. They used underpowered compilers, and made various hacks on their own system to boost the performance.
And even then apple's performance was either slightly ahead (floating point) or lagging behind the dell (integer). He then took dell's own performance figures, which are undoubtedly arrived at by using specialized compilers, and hacks in the system to boost performance. But this is only fair, since apple did this in the first place!
I think your post is more of a troll than the article!
How does having one "stupid" comment show taht the article should not be taken seriously? To me the article makes sense. The numbers are in the open. If you dont trust the article, do your own research, and you would come to the same conclusion!
Does it make any difference? What he writes about makes sense! The numbers are out in the open. He is simply presenting it in a readable fashion...
You are looking at only one side of the story. What about people who NEVER buy a copy of linux, and still use it? I guess a VAST majority of people using linux fall in this category. They either download a CD iso, or get it from a friend, or get it with a magazine or book. I have been using linux for about ten years now, am currently running linux on about three machines at home, and have never purchased a licensed copy. Does that mean I would be counted as a non-linux uder?
Not the movies i really want to see. It breaks the continuity and makes you get the wrong impression of the movie. For a big chunk of the trash that is produced by hollywood it makes no difference how and where you watch it.
You should decide what you see. What I meant was that once you decide you want to see a movie, see the complete movie. You are still free to decide what movie to see! I am strongly against movie studios imposing limits or forcing directors to modify the content of the film so that it can cater to the vast audience and/or get them more money. Even most of the director cuts have the same problem. Now add to that people making their own cuts and distributing them. chaos!
Do what you want with your dvd. No one cares about that. But distributing the modified dvd without telling the audience know of the changes you have made is bad.
What I meant (you would have understood if you read the whole thing) was that it is okay for people to see what they like. Fast forward all you want, Skip over the ads, etc. But why would you want to edit a DVD other than for re-distributing it? I would still be okay with people editing DVDs for removing material that they dont want to see each time they see the movie. But what I am _strongly_ against is when someone else watches the re-edited movie without having seen the original, and with no knowledge that this is a re-edited movie. That should be a strict no-no.
"I know that most DVDs have chapter stops. It is my opinion that a film is not like a book - it should not be broken up. It is a continuum and should be seen as such. Thank you for understanding" - David Lynch on why his DVDs have no chapter stops.
I think I would agree with this philosophy. If you dont like parts of a movie, try to live with it.
I cant agree more with you. But I still feel it is for the director to decide what goes into the movie and what doesnt. You may or may not like parts of the movie, but I prefer to look at the movie as a whole.
Same here. I dont know how to feel about this. I am strongly in favor of the director deciding what the viewers see. After all its their movie. Movies are a work of art, and only the director should have the final say of what goes in and what doesnt. (ofcourse, this doesnt apply to crappy movies that dont even need a decent director anyways)
On the other hand, I dont see any reason to stop people from removing parts of a movie that they dont like. Self censorship is best.
But I dont know how I would feel if people started distributing edited DVDs. That becomes gray area for me. Maybe it is good at times (the phantom edit comes to mind). But I am sure that I would not like to see an edited movie before I have seen an unedited virgin print first.
Why GREEN ???
Already slashdotted...
So slashdot is finally getting with the times... technicolor, wow!
Simple, because it is fun !!
The movie has been available on kazaa/edonkey and the like for a while now!
Heard of one time use CC numbers?
You may not get the fp, but you surely get a big thank you from thousands of loyal slack users worldwide!