Considering that Credit Unions are not for profit instituations, it makes perfect sense for them to have a.org, just like my credit union (Coastal Federal Credit Union).
Benchmark Summary: The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor performed well overall throughout our entire battery of benchmarks. Due to the processor's relatively high-clock speed, dual execution cores, HT technology and 1066MHz bus, the synthetic benchmarks, 3D rendering tests, and audio encoding tests ran best on the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 / D975XBX platform. However, most of the gaming tests, content creation and desktop applications, and the video encoding tests ran best on the AMD Athlon 64 X2 / NF4 SLIX16 combo.
However, if you look at the actual 3d rendering tests they do (Kribibench v1.1), the AMD processor wins one test by ~20% and loses one by ~5%. Although the second test was a more 'difficult' test, it seems quite a jump to say that the Intel chip performs better at 3D rendering.
http://www.pricewatch.com/ is more useful for finding something like a USB cable. And there, you can find a $3 USB cable that actually costs $3, after shipping, its $7.56 from HP.
I don't know what AMD did at their Press event you went to, but in this case, both systems were using integrated graphics. The only difference is on the AMD system, ATI made the chipset w/ integrated graphics, while on the Intel system, Intel made the chipset w/ integrated graphics.
From what I saw while at college, if you come to class with makeup on I can't help but not take you seriously. Sorry, thems the breaks.
Did you take guys who came to class clean-shaven seriously? How about the guys that dressed in clean clothes? Just because someone spends time on their appearance does not mean that they are there just to be pretty, and not to study and learn.
But, at the time the system was setup, 16-bit might have been the normal integer size, and working with 32-bit or higher might have, at the time, fallen under bignums...
You can't prove anything w/ statistics, however, given that there hasn't been a species ending event in at least the last 3.5 million years, you can say that it is statisticly unlikely that there is a 1/455 chance of one happening in the next 100 years.
Now, you are correct, we might just be an extremely lucky planet, and maybe one out of every 455 planets gets its life removed every 100 years (on average). But, the only evidence I have (us) strongly suggests that this is not the case.
Please, find me some statistics to show I am wrong. Give me a list of planets of our approximate size and location (both in the galaxy, and in our respective solar systems), and tell me how many of them experienced events that on our planet would kill us all in the last 100 years. And if it is approximately 1 out of 455, then I would say you are right.
The point is, this guy pulls out a statistic, which he does not back up at all, and which, looking at the only evidence availible to me (our past) is extremely unlikely. At the very least, the fact that we don't experience a species ending event every 30,000 years or so (approximately the expected value, given the 1/455 chance), suggests that more evidence should be provided before any rational person believes his statistic.
Your math is a little off....
The article claims a 1/455 chance of getting wipped out in the next 100 years. So the chance of no event in a 100 year period is 454/455 or about 99.8%...
But, the idea is, to figure out if his 1 in 455 chance of being wiped out in the next 100 years is an accurate measurement. I am going to run some numbers, and maybe we can decide if it is:
1) we have a 454/455 chance of living 100 years (around 99.8%)
2) we have a (454/455)^10 chance of living 1000 years (around 97.8%)
3) we have a (454/455)^100 chance of living 10,000 years (around 80.3%)
4) we have a (454/455)^500 chance of living 50,000 years (around 33.3%)
5) we have a (454/455)^1000 chance of living 100,000 years (around 11.1%)
6) we have a (454/455)^10000 chance of living 1 million years (around 0.00000003%)
7) we have a (454/455)^35000 chance of living 3.5 million years (around 4*(10^-32)%)
The reason I mentioned 3.5 million years is because that is how long ago Lucy (the Australopithecus) lived. So, it is unlikely that a species ending event (like a super volcano or astoriod impact) happened in the last 3.5 million years. Which means, we beat some really insane odds! We had a 99.9(whole bunch more 9s)96% chance of having been killed during that time! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm buying a lottery ticket!
Looking at Apple's website, I see that you can purchase XServe G5s w/ single or dual 2 Ghz processors. System X uses 2.3 Ghz processors (2200 of them), which are not availible for purchase.
So maybe creating a cluster of XServe G5s is cheap, and maybe a great deal all around, but if Apple is hand supplying the special 2.3 Ghz processors to VT, it is not unreasonable to assume they also cut them a nice price break. Now, maybe Apple will give the same price break on the same unavailible processors to anyone who asks, in which case, yeah, XServe G5 clusters are the way to go!
Say I have an account with Bank One. A company goes to Verisign, and owns Bank0ne.com. They sign their e-mail, I verify it is from Bank0ne.com through Verisign. Now, instead of having a signed E-mail make me safer, it has increased my risk. I don't notice the 0, and since I trust Verisign, I assume the e-mail came from BankOne.com, and click whatever they present me with. Had I not had the signed e-mail falsly reassure me, I might have been more cautious, and not fallen for the trick.
In this case, they probably achieved the 200 mile range by using 10 times the normal number of batteries. But the car probably weighs 10 tons. I bet that's why it's huge, and has eight wheels (including four in the front).
Actually, according the to the UK article, the car weighs 2,400kg, or 2.6455 tons. Also, the car has eight 100bhp in-wheel motors, so I am guessing that the eight wheels are there to provide the extra horsepower needed to have this thing go 0-60 in about 4 seconds.
1. A geniuine desire to impart knowledge. This starts from the bottom end with a 'They're cute, and I can help them' feeling, combined with a realisation of the lack of any real work involved, or from the top end, with a 'I know so much more than those around me, I should demonstrate that knowlege' which combines with an attempt to stay in the higher education system with its low workload and perks for as long as possible, avoiding the 'real world'.
So, should I assume that your post is a geniuine desire to impart knowledge to us? What are you basing your knowledge of teachers on? Perhaps your own motivations? I agree with many others who responded to your flamebait: you make me sick.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
~Charles Darwin
The interesting thing is that the Opteron 248 CPU is faster than just clock cycles (using timothy's code)
319*(2.2/1.8)=390 411
You seem to think that 1,000,000 bytes is 1 MB... are you in hard drive sales?
But seriously, if you take the proper value of 1,048,576 bytes as 1 MB, you get about 393 MB/s for the 2.2 Ghz Opteron, which is right about what you predicted.
IANAL, and I am sure that this is against some laws, but if you want the lesser of two evils, but feel you should vote for your canidate of choice, perhaps you can ask a friend in a non-swing state who has no interest in a third party canidate (but agrees with you on the lesser of two evils) to agree to vote for your third party canidate, and in exchange you can vote for the lesser of two evils. This way, the third party canidate still gets a vote, and you don't get attacked by a rabid mob for throwing away your vote in a swing state.
I would just like to finish this post by saying: IANAL and this is in no way advice that I feel anyone should follow, merely hypothetical ponderings on my part, which I am sharing with the slashdot community as I believe is my first amendment right.
What if your dinosaur PIII is a laptop? Those are much harder to upgrade, and $150 won't do it for you.
Also, you call a PIII a dinosaur!? If all I need my computer to do is office applications and web browsing, a PIII is probably even overkill! A good P-Pro system can still handle those tasks.
Those screenshots are the relatively useless SiSoft Sandra 2004 Memory scores. In addition, the Athlon 64 3000+ is only using a single channel of DDR memory, compaired to the dual channel P4 system. If you actually look at benchmarks of the Athlon 64 3000+, you will see how well it performs.
Here is a review that has more useful benchmarks to compare P4's and A64's.
From what I can tell, most heatsinks will not work without some modification (sometimes as simple as adding washers), but read the thread, it answers a lot of questions.
Why do you think the non-mobile version will run faster? Do you have access to information that tells you that the cores are actually different (and that the mobile performs worse)?
Do you have anything to back up your statement? Perhaps a site benchmarking, or stating that some power saving optimization in the mobile processors hinders performance?
Also, at least for the Mobile Athlon XPs, there was no difference between the cores, they were just hand picked to be able to run at a lower core voltage...any reason why you think the case is different with the mobile Athlon 64s?
The real development here is the liquid cooling. It's a big step forward, because this means that they might be able to put faster processors into the Powerbooks, and they'll be ready for 3GHz and faster processors once IBM overcomes the Voodoo Curse.
You say that the liquid cooling is a real development and a big step forward. I don't see either of these as being the case. As any overclocker knows, liquid cooling is great for getting chips to run cooler so you can overclock them. This is probably exactly why Apple is releasing these chips with liquid cooling, because they are not capable of releasing them with air cooling at this speed without sounding like a jet engine. Now I am behind Apple doing this, keeping their commitment to producing a quite computer, but don't delude yourself and think that liquid cooling is a big step forward.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that Credit Unions are not for profit instituations, it makes perfect sense for them to have a .org, just like my credit union (Coastal Federal Credit Union).
http://www.pricewatch.com/ is more useful for finding something like a USB cable. And there, you can find a $3 USB cable that actually costs $3, after shipping, its $7.56 from HP.
I don't know what AMD did at their Press event you went to, but in this case, both systems were using integrated graphics. The only difference is on the AMD system, ATI made the chipset w/ integrated graphics, while on the Intel system, Intel made the chipset w/ integrated graphics.
Seems fair to me.
AMD Specs
Intel Specs
But, at the time the system was setup, 16-bit might have been the normal integer size, and working with 32-bit or higher might have, at the time, fallen under bignums...
You can't prove anything w/ statistics, however, given that there hasn't been a species ending event in at least the last 3.5 million years, you can say that it is statisticly unlikely that there is a 1/455 chance of one happening in the next 100 years.
Now, you are correct, we might just be an extremely lucky planet, and maybe one out of every 455 planets gets its life removed every 100 years (on average). But, the only evidence I have (us) strongly suggests that this is not the case.
Please, find me some statistics to show I am wrong. Give me a list of planets of our approximate size and location (both in the galaxy, and in our respective solar systems), and tell me how many of them experienced events that on our planet would kill us all in the last 100 years. And if it is approximately 1 out of 455, then I would say you are right.
The point is, this guy pulls out a statistic, which he does not back up at all, and which, looking at the only evidence availible to me (our past) is extremely unlikely. At the very least, the fact that we don't experience a species ending event every 30,000 years or so (approximately the expected value, given the 1/455 chance), suggests that more evidence should be provided before any rational person believes his statistic.
Your math is a little off.... The article claims a 1/455 chance of getting wipped out in the next 100 years. So the chance of no event in a 100 year period is 454/455 or about 99.8%...
But, the idea is, to figure out if his 1 in 455 chance of being wiped out in the next 100 years is an accurate measurement. I am going to run some numbers, and maybe we can decide if it is:
1) we have a 454/455 chance of living 100 years (around 99.8%)
2) we have a (454/455)^10 chance of living 1000 years (around 97.8%)
3) we have a (454/455)^100 chance of living 10,000 years (around 80.3%)
4) we have a (454/455)^500 chance of living 50,000 years (around 33.3%)
5) we have a (454/455)^1000 chance of living 100,000 years (around 11.1%)
6) we have a (454/455)^10000 chance of living 1 million years (around 0.00000003%)
7) we have a (454/455)^35000 chance of living 3.5 million years (around 4*(10^-32)%)
The reason I mentioned 3.5 million years is because that is how long ago Lucy (the Australopithecus) lived. So, it is unlikely that a species ending event (like a super volcano or astoriod impact) happened in the last 3.5 million years. Which means, we beat some really insane odds! We had a 99.9(whole bunch more 9s)96% chance of having been killed during that time! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm buying a lottery ticket!
Looking at Apple's website, I see that you can purchase XServe G5s w/ single or dual 2 Ghz processors. System X uses 2.3 Ghz processors (2200 of them), which are not availible for purchase.
So maybe creating a cluster of XServe G5s is cheap, and maybe a great deal all around, but if Apple is hand supplying the special 2.3 Ghz processors to VT, it is not unreasonable to assume they also cut them a nice price break. Now, maybe Apple will give the same price break on the same unavailible processors to anyone who asks, in which case, yeah, XServe G5 clusters are the way to go!
Say I have an account with Bank One. A company goes to Verisign, and owns Bank0ne.com. They sign their e-mail, I verify it is from Bank0ne.com through Verisign. Now, instead of having a signed E-mail make me safer, it has increased my risk. I don't notice the 0, and since I trust Verisign, I assume the e-mail came from BankOne.com, and click whatever they present me with. Had I not had the signed e-mail falsly reassure me, I might have been more cautious, and not fallen for the trick.
Actually, according the to the UK article, the car weighs 2,400kg, or 2.6455 tons. Also, the car has eight 100bhp in-wheel motors, so I am guessing that the eight wheels are there to provide the extra horsepower needed to have this thing go 0-60 in about 4 seconds.
Go here to download the codec.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." ~Charles Darwin
But seriously, if you take the proper value of 1,048,576 bytes as 1 MB, you get about 393 MB/s for the 2.2 Ghz Opteron, which is right about what you predicted.
One possiblity you can consider is vote trading.
IANAL, and I am sure that this is against some laws, but if you want the lesser of two evils, but feel you should vote for your canidate of choice, perhaps you can ask a friend in a non-swing state who has no interest in a third party canidate (but agrees with you on the lesser of two evils) to agree to vote for your third party canidate, and in exchange you can vote for the lesser of two evils. This way, the third party canidate still gets a vote, and you don't get attacked by a rabid mob for throwing away your vote in a swing state.
I would just like to finish this post by saying: IANAL and this is in no way advice that I feel anyone should follow, merely hypothetical ponderings on my part, which I am sharing with the slashdot community as I believe is my first amendment right.
What if your dinosaur PIII is a laptop? Those are much harder to upgrade, and $150 won't do it for you.
Also, you call a PIII a dinosaur!? If all I need my computer to do is office applications and web browsing, a PIII is probably even overkill! A good P-Pro system can still handle those tasks.
What an embarassingly easy system to crack. All I need to do is XOR the result with your data...
Those screenshots are the relatively useless SiSoft Sandra 2004 Memory scores. In addition, the Athlon 64 3000+ is only using a single channel of DDR memory, compaired to the dual channel P4 system. If you actually look at benchmarks of the Athlon 64 3000+, you will see how well it performs.
Here is a review that has more useful benchmarks to compare P4's and A64's.
I would suggest checking out this thread
From what I can tell, most heatsinks will not work without some modification (sometimes as simple as adding washers), but read the thread, it answers a lot of questions.
Why do you think the non-mobile version will run faster? Do you have access to information that tells you that the cores are actually different (and that the mobile performs worse)?
Do you have anything to back up your statement? Perhaps a site benchmarking, or stating that some power saving optimization in the mobile processors hinders performance?
Also, at least for the Mobile Athlon XPs, there was no difference between the cores, they were just hand picked to be able to run at a lower core voltage...any reason why you think the case is different with the mobile Athlon 64s?
Oh, wait, that business model's been patented. Do you remember boo.com?
Actually I don't, and a google search doesn't give me any information either. So, care to enlighten?
...his job was answering AOL tech support phone calls.
The real development here is the liquid cooling. It's a big step forward, because this means that they might be able to put faster processors into the Powerbooks, and they'll be ready for 3GHz and faster processors once IBM overcomes the Voodoo Curse.
You say that the liquid cooling is a real development and a big step forward. I don't see either of these as being the case. As any overclocker knows, liquid cooling is great for getting chips to run cooler so you can overclock them. This is probably exactly why Apple is releasing these chips with liquid cooling, because they are not capable of releasing them with air cooling at this speed without sounding like a jet engine. Now I am behind Apple doing this, keeping their commitment to producing a quite computer, but don't delude yourself and think that liquid cooling is a big step forward.