To toss another $0.02... as this question seems to have come up a lot already.
Why didn't they install Linux onto the G5 and try comparing Linux to Linux?
And the answer on the first page, right under the pictures:
This article is written solely from the frustration that I could not get a clear picture on what the G5 and Mac OS X are capable of.
So apparently they meant to try and see beyond Apple's marketing - and that meant testing Apple's product, *OSX* Now, that this deed is done and curiositi piqued, they(say, at least, that they) intend to test the bare hardware in the next round - Linux, ppc vs. x86-64.
hp-ux... requires registration for free trial, too lazu to search another link; it could be 64bit though, as the HP page lists Itanium; however, it also says flashplayer6, so it's old.
Pocket PC... requires flash - doh! no can do, Macromedia has no flash for my Linux x86-64; but PocketPC is not 64bit anyway
So I gues the GP was right, getting 64bit binaries from Macromedia now is tough, unless you're using windows for Itanium. Perhaps after they make a win plugin for x86-64 things will get better... or perhaps not.
Yes, but only HP has Athlon64 machines and I wouldn't bet they sell a lot of them, too. You're probably thinking servers or workstations (given Sun and IBM in your list) and those will happily use dual cores from AMD... only *Opterons*, not Athlon64s.
The question remains - what is the target for AMD's *desktop* dual-cores? Gaming apparently, as discount is out of the question for now.
What are you talking about? Athlon64 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz. How is that 2x faster clockwise than 1.6GHz?
Oh, you thought 3200+ means 3.2GHz? Where have you been for the last... let's see, 5+ years? Not even Intel labesl CPUs by frequency anymore these days.
You should start by stating your definitions. Something like (from Webster):
socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Of course, this is a simplification, but offers a starting point. Next:
Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that "nazi" comes from "national-socialism" or that Lenin and Stalin claimed to have "embraced and extended" Marx's theories is circumstantial for the end result - everything must start somewhere. You might as well say that Napoleon was a republican, since he begun by serving the French Republic.
Now look up those definitions on your own if you don't trust these, but to spell it out for you: Hitler was the head of a fascist regime in its purest form ('extreme right wing' some would call it). Stalin was the head of an authoritarian regime whose ideology is usually known as Marxism-Leninism (or 'extreme left wing') - some people would say it was not communism, but a perverted form, while others will argue that it was indeed communism - and the logical conclusion of any attempt to follow the theoretical sequence capitalism -> socialism -> communism to its end.
To go back to the original point, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference in form between the two extremes, but you have to bear in mind that socialism means state ownership and in the extreme (communist) case no private property, while fascism means state control, which is a little less. Also, in theory socialism does not advocate an authoritarian government, but it can easily fall into one when pushed. Now, what we have here is neither... yet. So far, there are several paths ahead, but all will lead to one autoritarian regime or another if left to develop as they do now. I do wonder though whether it will happen smoothly or rise from a period of chaos.
He was probably just saying you couldn't play a video and do any other math at the same time at the processor level which seem true enough to me.
You mean your video player also does unrelated random math on the FPU? because if you're talking different applications/threads... welcome to multitasking and context switches.
Now, I have a real problem with anyone who tries to discount "materialism" as being outright wrong. Most of the people who do have a very hard time understanding the interconnectedness of physical and electrical systems. Many people who talk about the mind being some kind of spiritual energy have no idea of what they are talking about. Spiritual energy of what? What is that energy measured in, and what are the opposites which bring about this manifested energy? And how does this energy interact with physical systems? I say BS. Most of the people you've mentioned and the books you've stated are all from armchair philosophers who have very little knowledge of the world. Their understanding of the world is from a fairytale perspective that predicts nothing, and doesn't change our state of existance one iota.
While I agree with the final part (well, under the vagueness of 'most'), the first part of this is questionable - from a logical perspective, at least. You are doing exactly what you're condemning - bundling a whole bunch of things together under a "spiritualist" guise or something and discounting them without disproving them. The fact that one cannot measure something *now* does not mean there's nothing to measure. You only have to look back at the history of science to see what I mean - sometimes indeed there is nothing (phlogiston anyone?) but other times the use of better tools actually shows something, which may or may not be related to what one was looking for.
I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not there should be any kind of "new" energy associated with consciousness - that would be quite unsound logically, given the data that I'm currently aware of. I'm only saying that one should not draw too rigid a line between what "is" and what "is not" as far as scientific research is concerned. Remember, they used to say about Physics at the end of the XIX-th century that "the theoretical work is finished - all that's left is to deal with the few remaining and peripheral cases that are not fully explained yet"
I consider your viewpoint quite a bit more odd. You seem to suggest that I need evidence to disbelieve something, which is not so. If you tell me that a leprechaun lives in your back yard, I don't need to go hunt for evidence in order to not believe you. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, and you are the one with the burden of evidence. Likewise, when someone claims that Jesus actually existed, I want to see some evidence.
ah, but you are missing the point here - more precisely, a nuance of it, which turns out to be quite important. This is not a "tertium non datur" type of problem, in spite of the fact that the underlying question would be. While a particular person either lived or didn't, our knowledge of its existence can be, making a rough cut, 'true', 'false' or 'indetermined' (aka "insufficient information") In the third case, requiring a proof either way is meaningless with the existing data. This is where 'belief' comes in. So no, you can't prove or disprove beliefs, you can only prove or disprove hard data. If the datum is "a book says..." and that is all you have, then there's nothing to prove. Neither "I trust the book" nor "I do not trust the book" have any sound logical backing. Of course, if the author openly declares the book was fictional (and you have enough reason to trust him/her) this is extra information that tips the scales.
There is essentially no evidence in favor of the historical existence of Jesus. The gospels were written long after his death, by unknown authors (certainly not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the writing style is that of fiction.
To take this as an example, you're using a logical fallacy to support your case. Analogy does not work here - the fact that it looks like fiction (in part) does not mean by itself that it is fiction (in the whole), just as much as the fact that it says it's true does not mean it actually is.
As a different example - why would you trust Herodotus with his histories? Because you can corroborate them from independent sources. In fact, what that means is that you'd be making a statistical assertion - all the independent correlations give a very high probability that a particular event is true. On the other hand, lack of known correlations does not mean something is false, just that in light of the current knowledge it has a low probability of being true.
So let me ask you this: why should I believe in Jesus? Why should I believe in him, or Achilles, or Hercules, any more than I do in Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns, or leprechauns?
Now we're getting somewhere. This is indeed a matter of beliefs - which works by persuasion, not coercition. So you don't have to believe. It's good, too that one can these days make the choice to believe or not (in Jesus, as that was the starting point) without putting one's life in danger:-)
Sorry this got so long. However, speaking of beliefs, I'll leave you with one more question: do you 'believe' Euclid's axioms?
It's good that you at least don't really follow that line of thought to its conclusion. You'd have to throw all inertial forces off the window (oops! there goes mechanics!) unless, of course, you were one of them zero-mass humans.
Pay attention next time you're moving with changing velocity. And be thankful that whoever invented seatbelts did not share that particular belief of yours.
to add to the list a point that's apparently insignificant:
The Soviets' desire to lift their economy and military out of the medieval mud
Specifically, their 'exchange' agreements with Germany from which the germans got a loophole for the military limitations Versailles imposed on them, while the russians got the tech.
I don't necessarily disbelieve him, but a critical, intelligent mind requires a little further evidence than his own testimony before bitch-slapping anyone else's opinion.
That would be cross-verifying his statements about the vice-Dean publicly saying that he never taught at that University. If those are true, then he was actually repudiated.
you left out "good thermal conductivity, although I like copper better":-) but then again, to stay on topic diamond kicks ass as far as thermal conductivity is concerned.
The defining property of a fermion and a boson is that a fermions probability amplitudes add with a minus sign and a bosons probablitly amplitudes add with a postive sign[...]
As the saying goes, I don't think those words mean what you think they do.
Fermions and bosons are only defined in the context of more-that-one-particle states. One-particle states couldn't care less. The idea is that for identical particles, a particle permutation has to be a valid symmetry of the system (after all, you can't tell them apart) - and since a permutation squared is the identity, the corresponding eigenvalues of the permutation operator can be 1 and -1, that is symmetric and antisymmetric. Now:
fermions: the total wavefunction of the system is antisymmetric under a particle permutation (P[psi] = -psi)
bosons: the total wavefunction of the system is symmetric under a particle permutation (P[psi] = psi)
Here's what Apple's FairPlay DRM means for users: any iPod can play any iTMS-purchased AAC, which implies there is a master key for decoding the FairPlay file. Apple's software respects the flags in the FairPlay file which indicate what computers are authorized to play the file. Other software may ignore the flags and decode the file anyway. You do need certain decryption keys to do this (see JHymn, PlayFair).
ho-hum. Care to make that consistent with the 'the iPod has no DRM' statement? The way you stated it, it sounds like you're trying to say that DRM is limited to handling stuff like which devices you play on, how many times, etc. and has nothing to do with the fact that the track itself is encrypted/scrambled - kind of silly, as DRM is not just the same idea as the now defunct broadcast flag.
You must be kidding me. newegg currently only lists 2 Venice core A64s: 3200+(2.0GHz) at $209 and 3500+ (2.2GHz) at $315. Where did you come up with the 4000+ at $643? AMD's own listed price for bulk here is only $482 for 4000+, which will likely keep it quite a bit below $643 (for comparison, 3500+ is $272 in bulk)
One problem is with raising libxml/libxslt to the rank of 'core libs' - meaning/lib or static linking into init. I doubt many sysadmins will trust that. Think evolving standards, evolving implementations and new bugs versus KISS.
On the other hand, for stuff that runs AFTER the basic system is set up, XML configs aren't that bad.
Well then, compare high-risk Soviet era reactors to high-pollution Soviet era coal plants and count casualties. Chernobyl would be something of a drop in the bucket, only a high-profile one (because the Soviets couldn't quite cover it up and pretend it didn't happen)
In terms of modern tech, nuclear power plants are over-engineered for safety.
It's not very likely that this particular part would be ruled invalid:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Thus if the license is invalid in part (cannot restrict rights in a certain manner) those rights aren't granted at all and distribution of GPL-ed software without agreeing to GPL would still fail under copyright infringement. Explicitly:
7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Even 5 minutes per desktop is a lot when multiplied by 6,000.
You're thinking about it the wrong way. You set up an image *once per machine type* (assuming you have several generations of machine with different enough hardware) - then use whatever management software yout IT dept. fancies to push that onto the appropriate desktops. This being Novell, it would mean ZenWorks.
Of course, in the real world things don't go smoothly, but it should be quite below (time per machine) x (no. of machines) in spent time.
You paid for the end result and the researchers required $X to get it.
Technically that's incomplete, unless you mean it in the "independent MS study" way. You pay for the results, true, but you want to get *valid* results. Now, validity requires others to be able to reproduce them (scientific method and all) - which in this particular case does not seem to happen. Then either the results are correct or they are not. in the first case, researchers have to defend them (which requires allowing a peer review of their procedure) otherwise the funding money have been paid for nothing. Mind you, mistakes have some positive value if they are disclosed, as people will know how to avoid them later.
It does not have to, but inevitably it will for some people.
The by-product is that people are buying these products for form over function. They say it looks pretty and then buy it but don't secure it.
Familiar, eh? it's the typical user buying a machine from Fry's, CompUSA and, now, Apple stores. Meaning Apple is also netting clueless users with its 'switch' campaign. Simply because they were largely confined to Windows so far won't magically change their ways as they move to Macs.
Next, more of this type of users can mean more unsecured machines, hence a more attractive target for hackers. Once hackers move in (and they will, what with macs becoming cheaper and all) security of OSX will really begin to get tested.
Those who aren't willing to CONTRIBUTE to an Open Source/Free Software project are not entitled to an opinion.
Assuming you're not as dense as this statement makes you appear, here's what's wrong with this particular bit:
EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion.
The value of an opinion is not directly related to the contributing/non-contributing status of the person emitting it (a.k.a. contributors do not hold a monopoly on truth)
No matter the value of the opinion, there is no guarantee of it being taken into account other people, such as developers (a.k.a. "reasonable expectation" != "certainty")
If you want to split hairs, an opinion IS a contribution, even if not always a positive one.
They can test and report bugs...
Technically, this is what she did - report a bug in the feedback system (effect of feature requests, voting and so on) Unless you want to uphold the idea that user feedback is irrelevant to F/OSS or that for some reason "user feedback" changes meaning when applied to F/OSS, in which case I apologize for attempting to argue with you.
Slashdot Mirror
And the answer on the first page, right under the pictures:
So apparently they meant to try and see beyond Apple's marketing - and that meant testing Apple's product, *OSX* Now, that this deed is done and curiositi piqued, they(say, at least, that they) intend to test the bare hardware in the next round - Linux, ppc vs. x86-64.
Heh, I was actually curious enough to check those binaries. Guess what did file have to say about them?
... requires registration for free trial, too lazu to search another link; it could be 64bit though, as the HP page lists Itanium; however, it also says flashplayer6, so it's old.
... requires flash - doh! no can do, Macromedia has no flash for my Linux x86-64; but PocketPC is not 64bit anyway
... or perhaps not.
solaris:
libflashplayer.so: ELF 32-bit MSB shared object, SPARC, version 1 (SYSV), stripped
irix:
libflashplayer.so: ELF 32-bit MSB MIPS-II shared object, MIPS, version 1 (SYSV), stripped
hp-ux
Pocket PC
So I gues the GP was right, getting 64bit binaries from Macromedia now is tough, unless you're using windows for Itanium. Perhaps after they make a win plugin for x86-64 things will get better
I'd call HP, Sun, and IBM "big OEMs".
... only *Opterons*, not Athlon64s.
Yes, but only HP has Athlon64 machines and I wouldn't bet they sell a lot of them, too. You're probably thinking servers or workstations (given Sun and IBM in your list) and those will happily use dual cores from AMD
The question remains - what is the target for AMD's *desktop* dual-cores? Gaming apparently, as discount is out of the question for now.
What are you talking about? Athlon64 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz. How is that 2x faster clockwise than 1.6GHz?
... let's see, 5+ years? Not even Intel labesl CPUs by frequency anymore these days.
Oh, you thought 3200+ means 3.2GHz? Where have you been for the last
Of course, this is a simplification, but offers a starting point. Next:
Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that "nazi" comes from "national-socialism" or that Lenin and Stalin claimed to have "embraced and extended" Marx's theories is circumstantial for the end result - everything must start somewhere. You might as well say that Napoleon was a republican, since he begun by serving the French Republic.
Now look up those definitions on your own if you don't trust these, but to spell it out for you: Hitler was the head of a fascist regime in its purest form ('extreme right wing' some would call it). Stalin was the head of an authoritarian regime whose ideology is usually known as Marxism-Leninism (or 'extreme left wing') - some people would say it was not communism, but a perverted form, while others will argue that it was indeed communism - and the logical conclusion of any attempt to follow the theoretical sequence capitalism -> socialism -> communism to its end.
To go back to the original point, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference in form between the two extremes, but you have to bear in mind that socialism means state ownership and in the extreme (communist) case no private property, while fascism means state control, which is a little less. Also, in theory socialism does not advocate an authoritarian government, but it can easily fall into one when pushed. Now, what we have here is neither
He was probably just saying you couldn't play a video and do any other math at the same time at the processor level which seem true enough to me.
... welcome to multitasking and context switches.
You mean your video player also does unrelated random math on the FPU? because if you're talking different applications/threads
And any decent optimizing compiler will say "constant string? I'll do this guy a favor and call puts() instead"
While I agree with the final part (well, under the vagueness of 'most'), the first part of this is questionable - from a logical perspective, at least. You are doing exactly what you're condemning - bundling a whole bunch of things together under a "spiritualist" guise or something and discounting them without disproving them. The fact that one cannot measure something *now* does not mean there's nothing to measure. You only have to look back at the history of science to see what I mean - sometimes indeed there is nothing (phlogiston anyone?) but other times the use of better tools actually shows something, which may or may not be related to what one was looking for.
I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not there should be any kind of "new" energy associated with consciousness - that would be quite unsound logically, given the data that I'm currently aware of. I'm only saying that one should not draw too rigid a line between what "is" and what "is not" as far as scientific research is concerned. Remember, they used to say about Physics at the end of the XIX-th century that "the theoretical work is finished - all that's left is to deal with the few remaining and peripheral cases that are not fully explained yet"
ah, but you are missing the point here - more precisely, a nuance of it, which turns out to be quite important. This is not a "tertium non datur" type of problem, in spite of the fact that the underlying question would be. While a particular person either lived or didn't, our knowledge of its existence can be, making a rough cut, 'true', 'false' or 'indetermined' (aka "insufficient information") In the third case, requiring a proof either way is meaningless with the existing data. This is where 'belief' comes in. So no, you can't prove or disprove beliefs, you can only prove or disprove hard data. If the datum is "a book says
To take this as an example, you're using a logical fallacy to support your case. Analogy does not work here - the fact that it looks like fiction (in part) does not mean by itself that it is fiction (in the whole), just as much as the fact that it says it's true does not mean it actually is.
As a different example - why would you trust Herodotus with his histories? Because you can corroborate them from independent sources. In fact, what that means is that you'd be making a statistical assertion - all the independent correlations give a very high probability that a particular event is true. On the other hand, lack of known correlations does not mean something is false, just that in light of the current knowledge it has a low probability of being true.
Now we're getting somewhere. This is indeed a matter of beliefs - which works by persuasion, not coercition. So you don't have to believe. It's good, too that one can these days make the choice to believe or not (in Jesus, as that was the starting point) without putting one's life in danger
Sorry this got so long. However, speaking of beliefs, I'll leave you with one more question: do you 'believe' Euclid's axioms?
Too bad I don't believe in imaginary forces...
It's good that you at least don't really follow that line of thought to its conclusion. You'd have to throw all inertial forces off the window (oops! there goes mechanics!) unless, of course, you were one of them zero-mass humans.
Pay attention next time you're moving with changing velocity. And be thankful that whoever invented seatbelts did not share that particular belief of yours.
Specifically, their 'exchange' agreements with Germany from which the germans got a loophole for the military limitations Versailles imposed on them, while the russians got the tech.
Oh, and it's "fascism", btw.
I don't necessarily disbelieve him, but a critical, intelligent mind requires a little further evidence than his own testimony before bitch-slapping anyone else's opinion.
That would be cross-verifying his statements about the vice-Dean publicly saying that he never taught at that University. If those are true, then he was actually repudiated.
you left out "good thermal conductivity, although I like copper better" :-) but then again, to stay on topic diamond kicks ass as far as thermal conductivity is concerned.
The defining property of a fermion and a boson is that a fermions probability amplitudes add with a minus sign and a bosons probablitly amplitudes add with a postive sign[...]
As the saying goes, I don't think those words mean what you think they do.
Fermions and bosons are only defined in the context of more-that-one-particle states. One-particle states couldn't care less. The idea is that for identical particles, a particle permutation has to be a valid symmetry of the system (after all, you can't tell them apart) - and since a permutation squared is the identity, the corresponding eigenvalues of the permutation operator can be 1 and -1, that is symmetric and antisymmetric. Now:
fermions: the total wavefunction of the system is antisymmetric under a particle permutation (P[psi] = -psi)
bosons: the total wavefunction of the system is symmetric under a particle permutation (P[psi] = psi)
Here's what Apple's FairPlay DRM means for users: any iPod can play any iTMS-purchased AAC, which implies there is a master key for decoding the FairPlay file. Apple's software respects the flags in the FairPlay file which indicate what computers are authorized to play the file. Other software may ignore the flags and decode the file anyway. You do need certain decryption keys to do this (see JHymn, PlayFair).
ho-hum. Care to make that consistent with the 'the iPod has no DRM' statement? The way you stated it, it sounds like you're trying to say that DRM is limited to handling stuff like which devices you play on, how many times, etc. and has nothing to do with the fact that the track itself is encrypted/scrambled - kind of silly, as DRM is not just the same idea as the now defunct broadcast flag.
You must be kidding me. newegg currently only lists 2 Venice core A64s: 3200+(2.0GHz) at $209 and 3500+ (2.2GHz) at $315. Where did you come up with the 4000+ at $643?
AMD's own listed price for bulk here is only $482 for 4000+, which will likely keep it quite a bit below $643 (for comparison, 3500+ is $272 in bulk)
Why is adding XML to core services bad?
/lib or static linking into init. I doubt many sysadmins will trust that. Think evolving standards, evolving implementations and new bugs versus KISS.
One problem is with raising libxml/libxslt to the rank of 'core libs' - meaning
On the other hand, for stuff that runs AFTER the basic system is set up, XML configs aren't that bad.
RIAA goes hunting on Internet2 ... is it just me or that really gives new and interesting meanings to the term 'pirate'?
If removing mp3 further cripples their multimedia support, what is already missing?
mpeg4 and DVD playback
Well then, compare high-risk Soviet era reactors to high-pollution Soviet era coal plants and count casualties. Chernobyl would be something of a drop in the bucket, only a high-profile one (because the Soviets couldn't quite cover it up and pretend it didn't happen)
In terms of modern tech, nuclear power plants are over-engineered for safety.
Thus if the license is invalid in part (cannot restrict rights in a certain manner) those rights aren't granted at all and distribution of GPL-ed software without agreeing to GPL would still fail under copyright infringement. Explicitly:
Even 5 minutes per desktop is a lot when multiplied by 6,000.
You're thinking about it the wrong way. You set up an image *once per machine type* (assuming you have several generations of machine with different enough hardware) - then use whatever management software yout IT dept. fancies to push that onto the appropriate desktops. This being Novell, it would mean ZenWorks.
Of course, in the real world things don't go smoothly, but it should be quite below (time per machine) x (no. of machines) in spent time.
You paid for the end result and the researchers required $X to get it.
Technically that's incomplete, unless you mean it in the "independent MS study" way. You pay for the results, true, but you want to get *valid* results. Now, validity requires others to be able to reproduce them (scientific method and all) - which in this particular case does not seem to happen. Then either the results are correct or they are not. in the first case, researchers have to defend them (which requires allowing a peer review of their procedure) otherwise the funding money have been paid for nothing. Mind you, mistakes have some positive value if they are disclosed, as people will know how to avoid them later.
It does not have to, but inevitably it will for some people.
Familiar, eh? it's the typical user buying a machine from Fry's, CompUSA and, now, Apple stores. Meaning Apple is also netting clueless users with its 'switch' campaign. Simply because they were largely confined to Windows so far won't magically change their ways as they move to Macs.
Next, more of this type of users can mean more unsecured machines, hence a more attractive target for hackers. Once hackers move in (and they will, what with macs becoming cheaper and all) security of OSX will really begin to get tested.
Assuming you're not as dense as this statement makes you appear, here's what's wrong with this particular bit:
They can test and report bugs
Technically, this is what she did - report a bug in the feedback system (effect of feature requests, voting and so on) Unless you want to uphold the idea that user feedback is irrelevant to F/OSS or that for some reason "user feedback" changes meaning when applied to F/OSS, in which case I apologize for attempting to argue with you.