I agree. It occured to me just now while looking at all the posts again. I happend to overread the first posters explicit mention of AMD-64. I am sorry, I was knee jerking at a perceived knee jerking saying 'yeah, lets do it 64 bits, it'll be faster' which never occured. I apologize for being a jerk.
The code is still designed to run on a 32 bit processor. So even if the compiler is able play a little optimizing with the registers it might still run slower as the application is actually designed for a whole different platform. They are probably using tons of library calls as well and even while knowing that linux is at the very front of 64 bit computing I do wonder if the ported librarys have the same performance profiles and quirks as the olds. Anyways, even the long mode registers are not 64 bit specific in a generic sense eventhough they might be for AMD. As I said in the last post, its nothing to do with 64 bits but everything with enhanced architectur.
The coincidental advances in processor architecture that came at the same time as the 64 bit extentions have nothing to do at all with 64 bits. I am sorry, 64 bit in a processor description just relates to the addressing range. I am sure that the latest FX-53 runs doom3 better than an equally clocked XP but you needn't recompile to find that out.
what is "because the bios" supposed to mean? You left out the most important part of that sentence and I would like to hear it now. But then I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about;)
it just might be possible that doom3 won't suppport insanely high and unpractical frame rates. Also, beware the fillrate of your brain, you might overheat it with all that visual input. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, you are an LCD. How does that feel exactly?
stop the marketing. 64 bit is not faster per default, it's slower. Because performing any operation on two 64 bit words takes twice as long as performing the same operation on 32 bit words.
Also, my faith in humanity rests on the hope that a game won't hit the limits of 32 bit addressing anytime soon.
well, if it really is the case that a subtantial ( so substantial that it warrants talking about them) number of book buyers do this for showing off, that is still a good case against the poster that claimed that the latest fashion appears to be being proud of not reading. I mean, if that were a serious problem, people would go book burning not shopping.
I know that plastics are made from oil. I also know that Lookheed employees drive to work using gasoline made of oil. I know that F16s use kerosine, an oil product. The question was about why the great grandparent singled weapons manufacturing out from among, well, all the other heavy users of oil. It was a play on emotions and you know that dammend well. Oil == death is not valid, actually its quite the opposite. If you want to condem oil, do it on the alleged envoirmental consequences and not by implying that its applications are mostly negative.
Weapons makers don't just make the weapons, they market them - including lobbying for war, and supplying all sides of any profitable conflict until it blazes into action. "Merchants of death", that's what the hell is wrong with them.
Yeah, they are merchants of death and that's my point exactly. You need customers to be profitable. Of course they lobby, everyone does. That is not the issue, but the fact that there is someone to lobby to, someone actually with the power to get 250 million people in a war that doesn't concern them, on soil they don't care for, is.
If I were CEO I'd hopefully be busy enough not to find time to post to slashdot at all;). On a different note, have you noticed how much of your argument is just plain dogma? How you are demonizing your opponents? How you accept anything that affirms your believe with blind faith? There are no thruths. At all. Accept that an come back debating about science and not religion.
There have been far to many unfounded 'impeding end of the world as we know it' scares so far. This advices caution when dealing with the next big thing. Also, there is a way to follow the money on these scares. Would it really be viable for a climatologist to state that there is nothing to worry about when he could just as well support a doomsday scenario that helps with actually getting his staff and lab funded? Maybe the world is fragile, but then I wouldn't know how it survived that long in such a dangerous universe. You and people that think like you often overlook the simple fact that we are not outside the ecosystem. We don't have effects on the ecosytem of a different quality than, for instance, lions have. What we do happens within the ecosystem, not to it. But aside from the symantic distinction, a though occured to me last week. My premises are those:
1) carbon is the basis of all life.
2) carbon is recycled within the cycle of life but it is seldomly added to the envoirment ( volcano errupting ie.)
3) oil and coal reserves are carbon sinks. As mainstream science argrees, they are the result of buried biomass under high pressure. Hence 'fossile fuels'.
What if the ecosystem minus man actually bleeds carbon to the point where there is none left? Easy, no ecosystem from that point. That guy driving the SUV, he could be saving earth from becoming a useless rock like mars.
Your point about change serves me well. Now I can say: Well, the ecosystem, nature whatever you would call it is not a state, it is a process. It is constantly changing, from internal and external factors. Climate research for the most part doesn't acknowledge that fact at all. It would be unnatural to have stable weather patterns, stable mean temperaturs, stable rain fall, no floods, no huricans and no warm and cold periods. We've been keeping records of the weather and its incarnations for maybe 200 years now and we are arrogant enough to designate those conditions as 'normal' and any deviations to it as 'bad'. Yeah well, it might be changing but it has and will for a long time. If we can adapt we will survive, else we go extinct and that has also been going on for a long time.
maybe not. We have so many preconceptions and expectations already formed and envisioned by the many many good sci-fi litrature and movies there are. It could be disappointing when John Galaxy barely makes it here with tech that is not all that spectacular, looks that are just gross, intelligence that might forever remain unfathomable for us, with not much to say ( if we understand at all) because there is hardly any common ground and a culture that could be so contrary to ours that his presence might even be offending to the most open minded people. So yeah, people would get excited at first, but the alien could be so, well, alien that his existance is insubtantial to us. I don't know. I am not expecting much, makes it easier to please me;)
if airlines stopped caring about the bottom line and maximizing profits, you won't be flying at all. See North Korea and Soviet Russia for further reference.
you should try to remember who wrote what. I didn't cite any research whatsoever. It's not really relevant anyways because the statistic would also hold if 3 asteroids crashed within days and then none in the next 3000 years.
Where are the people dying from it? I don't think you can actually put up conclusive evidence that supports your hypotheses of a cause (global warming which there is no sign of, really, at least not from satelite data)- effect ( people dying at accelerated rates and such, which is not established at all). Until you do, please don't state model data as facts. Even the people behind the kyoto accord have said that there will be no meassurable effect from implementing its rather serve restrictions on liberty and properity. So why do it? The only way to bring about an substantial decrease of CO2 output is to go pre industrial. I hope you realize that the world population back was probably around 1/10 th it is today. So yeah, be my guesst, kill 5.4 billion people because of theories that lack even the slightest credibility.
actually drivers and airlines are probalby the best customers of petro companies. Why would arms makers need excessive amounts of oil or oil products? And what the hell is wrong with weapons manufactures anyways? Remember, F16s don't kill people, GI Joe does.
Yeah, well the CFC scandal subsided somewhat when it was shown that the ozone hole over antarcica was due to the unqique conditions there and has always been existant. By then it was too late and millions of dollars have been wasted just because green nuts like you could not hold of passing laws and bans until you know for sure.
Re Shell: shell is a company and therefore needs to serve the market in order to survive. If green energy is the next big thing, they will sell it. CEOs can't afford any principles whether good or bad. I bet privatly he thinks: ' well, I thought I'd sell food but now demand seems to be shifting heavily to shit, I'll guess I'll put my money there and praise shit like there is no tomorrow.'
Yeah, governments are really neutral players because they would never jump on a scare wagon to justify extording yet even more money and controlling the lifes of their citizents in even more detail.
Yeah, please, you too, get your beta blockers ready and become all excited about nothing at all happening, but please leave me alone with shit like the kyoto-protocol that costs me real money to satisfy a delusional UN commitee. I am not the one forcing others to my believe.
"None of the serious climate models indicate an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2."
I didn't say that. The english is way too sophisticated for me. I did say that the evidence for global warming is still inconclusive. So I guess I am still uncrompromised on the model position. I would like to see a good reply.
Your improbable wandering black hole is remarkably similar to the asteroid paranoia.
No its not. Eventhough it's a very remote possiblity, it hasn't happend to the solar system or earth yet ( as is evident from us still being abel to post to slashdot). Asteroids are a very real and certain danger as was quite visible when those huge rocks crashed into jupiter in 1997 or what year it was. Also, travel everywhere on earth and you will likely always be able to visit some huge ass crater that is a left over off a previous impact. Still, I am not in favour of spending (or for that matter collecting) any tax money at all but if I had to pick between
Climate change:
Is it happening? Uncertain
Is it harmful? Maybe
Could our best effords change anything? Probably not
Asteroid:
Is it likely? It has repeatedly happened on earth and is continuesly happening throughout the solar system.
Is it harmful? well, yes it gets nasty at really small sizes.
Can we avoid it? yeah, with enough time to react
it's a theory! Some guy pulled it out of his ass and wrote a paper that this could, in theory, happen. In theory a wandering black hole could come ripping through our solar system and you are not getting excited about that. Why?
As the facts are, oceanic circulation has not been shown to *ever* have been suspended. As has been pointed out in refutations to the movie you mention, oceanic circulation is a function of 'static' liquid on a moving surface ( or vice verca if you are so inclined), and nothing short of stopping the earth from spinning could affect them. You are citing predictions from models that aren't able to model the climate right now. Those models leave out millions of unkown variables and use dozens of variables that are known but not understood and therefore just assumed. Just by manipulating the later, you are able to make the model predict *whatever* climate you would like. And you really think it is wise to base public policy on this?
all the while YOU are pushing your pro-green, anti-civilisation propaganda that is, right now, robbing us of our money as well. There is no conclusive evidence for any of the following:
- Global warming is happening
- global warming is happening because of man
- current global warming exceeds or will exceed previous warm periods
- Global warming will do any harm at all, except creating different weather patterns than we are used to
- Global warming can be affected by anything we might do except kill 5 billion humans and let the rest life in caves again ( no fire though)
- Greenhouses that kill people;)
What you are talking about is only certain for people that look for yet another reason to raise taxes. In science, there is no absolute certainty.
you are a zealot. Man, stand back and think about what 'greenhouse' means before applying the word as a generic negative. Say 'greenhouse effect'.
Also, the 'breathing underwater' makes no sense in connection to global warming since breathing CO2 is perfectly healthy as long as you still keep enough O2 ( the lack of which has not been identified as a global problem yet, I wonder when the hysteria will take off) around. Also plants and therefore animals very much like CO2 as you might remember from biology classes.
Yeah, I guess they know that asteroids are just as dangerous to us as windmills were to Don.
It's funny, they are wasting *our* tax money, they know it and even have the nerve to lable the projects accordingly.
No, but initially you want to find things you share with the other person. After that accepting points of view, hobbies etc. becomes easier because her evaluation of you will have gone from 0 to +5 Interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. It occured to me just now while looking at all the posts again. I happend to overread the first posters explicit mention of AMD-64. I am sorry, I was knee jerking at a perceived knee jerking saying 'yeah, lets do it 64 bits, it'll be faster' which never occured. I apologize for being a jerk.
The code is still designed to run on a 32 bit processor. So even if the compiler is able play a little optimizing with the registers it might still run slower as the application is actually designed for a whole different platform. They are probably using tons of library calls as well and even while knowing that linux is at the very front of 64 bit computing I do wonder if the ported librarys have the same performance profiles and quirks as the olds. Anyways, even the long mode registers are not 64 bit specific in a generic sense eventhough they might be for AMD. As I said in the last post, its nothing to do with 64 bits but everything with enhanced architectur.
The coincidental advances in processor architecture that came at the same time as the 64 bit extentions have nothing to do at all with 64 bits. I am sorry, 64 bit in a processor description just relates to the addressing range. I am sure that the latest FX-53 runs doom3 better than an equally clocked XP but you needn't recompile to find that out.
but is it their god given right to know how to interact with the chipset of my ( if I am a MB firm) motherboard?
what is "because the bios" supposed to mean? You left out the most important part of that sentence and I would like to hear it now. But then I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about ;)
it just might be possible that doom3 won't suppport insanely high and unpractical frame rates. Also, beware the fillrate of your brain, you might overheat it with all that visual input. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, you are an LCD. How does that feel exactly?
stop the marketing. 64 bit is not faster per default, it's slower. Because performing any operation on two 64 bit words takes twice as long as performing the same operation on 32 bit words.
Also, my faith in humanity rests on the hope that a game won't hit the limits of 32 bit addressing anytime soon.
read the fucking post and then the article. I don't get it, did you just hit 'reply' right away? Have you read the headline by any chance?
I do think the may(j)ority is, in fact, masturbating to legal porn.
or maybe it just drove the exploding of heavy and fast-moving space vehicles with humans inside ...
I can see it now, the break-through on FTL travel research will be made by people wanting to sell porn to the folks living out back.
well, if it really is the case that a subtantial ( so substantial that it warrants talking about them) number of book buyers do this for showing off, that is still a good case against the poster that claimed that the latest fashion appears to be being proud of not reading. I mean, if that were a serious problem, people would go book burning not shopping.
I know that plastics are made from oil. I also know that Lookheed employees drive to work using gasoline made of oil. I know that F16s use kerosine, an oil product. The question was about why the great grandparent singled weapons manufacturing out from among, well, all the other heavy users of oil. It was a play on emotions and you know that dammend well. Oil == death is not valid, actually its quite the opposite. If you want to condem oil, do it on the alleged envoirmental consequences and not by implying that its applications are mostly negative.
;). On a different note, have you noticed how much of your argument is just plain dogma? How you are demonizing your opponents? How you accept anything that affirms your believe with blind faith? There are no thruths. At all. Accept that an come back debating about science and not religion.
Weapons makers don't just make the weapons, they market them - including lobbying for war, and supplying all sides of any profitable conflict until it blazes into action. "Merchants of death", that's what the hell is wrong with them.
Yeah, they are merchants of death and that's my point exactly. You need customers to be profitable. Of course they lobby, everyone does. That is not the issue, but the fact that there is someone to lobby to, someone actually with the power to get 250 million people in a war that doesn't concern them, on soil they don't care for, is.
If I were CEO I'd hopefully be busy enough not to find time to post to slashdot at all
There have been far to many unfounded 'impeding end of the world as we know it' scares so far. This advices caution when dealing with the next big thing. Also, there is a way to follow the money on these scares. Would it really be viable for a climatologist to state that there is nothing to worry about when he could just as well support a doomsday scenario that helps with actually getting his staff and lab funded? Maybe the world is fragile, but then I wouldn't know how it survived that long in such a dangerous universe. You and people that think like you often overlook the simple fact that we are not outside the ecosystem. We don't have effects on the ecosytem of a different quality than, for instance, lions have. What we do happens within the ecosystem, not to it. But aside from the symantic distinction, a though occured to me last week. My premises are those: 1) carbon is the basis of all life.
2) carbon is recycled within the cycle of life but it is seldomly added to the envoirment ( volcano errupting ie.)
3) oil and coal reserves are carbon sinks. As mainstream science argrees, they are the result of buried biomass under high pressure. Hence 'fossile fuels'.
What if the ecosystem minus man actually bleeds carbon to the point where there is none left? Easy, no ecosystem from that point. That guy driving the SUV, he could be saving earth from becoming a useless rock like mars.
Your point about change serves me well. Now I can say: Well, the ecosystem, nature whatever you would call it is not a state, it is a process. It is constantly changing, from internal and external factors. Climate research for the most part doesn't acknowledge that fact at all. It would be unnatural to have stable weather patterns, stable mean temperaturs, stable rain fall, no floods, no huricans and no warm and cold periods. We've been keeping records of the weather and its incarnations for maybe 200 years now and we are arrogant enough to designate those conditions as 'normal' and any deviations to it as 'bad'. Yeah well, it might be changing but it has and will for a long time. If we can adapt we will survive, else we go extinct and that has also been going on for a long time.
maybe not. We have so many preconceptions and expectations already formed and envisioned by the many many good sci-fi litrature and movies there are. It could be disappointing when John Galaxy barely makes it here with tech that is not all that spectacular, looks that are just gross, intelligence that might forever remain unfathomable for us, with not much to say ( if we understand at all) because there is hardly any common ground and a culture that could be so contrary to ours that his presence might even be offending to the most open minded people. So yeah, people would get excited at first, but the alien could be so, well, alien that his existance is insubtantial to us. I don't know. I am not expecting much, makes it easier to please me ;)
if airlines stopped caring about the bottom line and maximizing profits, you won't be flying at all. See North Korea and Soviet Russia for further reference.
the luxuries of today are the commodities of tomorrow. It has been that way with nearly everything so far, including bread.
you should try to remember who wrote what. I didn't cite any research whatsoever. It's not really relevant anyways because the statistic would also hold if 3 asteroids crashed within days and then none in the next 3000 years.
Where are the people dying from it? I don't think you can actually put up conclusive evidence that supports your hypotheses of a cause (global warming which there is no sign of, really, at least not from satelite data)- effect ( people dying at accelerated rates and such, which is not established at all). Until you do, please don't state model data as facts.
Even the people behind the kyoto accord have said that there will be no meassurable effect from implementing its rather serve restrictions on liberty and properity. So why do it? The only way to bring about an substantial decrease of CO2 output is to go pre industrial. I hope you realize that the world population back was probably around 1/10 th it is today. So yeah, be my guesst, kill 5.4 billion people because of theories that lack even the slightest credibility.
actually drivers and airlines are probalby the best customers of petro companies. Why would arms makers need excessive amounts of oil or oil products? And what the hell is wrong with weapons manufactures anyways? Remember, F16s don't kill people, GI Joe does.
Yeah, well the CFC scandal subsided somewhat when it was shown that the ozone hole over antarcica was due to the unqique conditions there and has always been existant. By then it was too late and millions of dollars have been wasted just because green nuts like you could not hold of passing laws and bans until you know for sure.
Re Shell: shell is a company and therefore needs to serve the market in order to survive. If green energy is the next big thing, they will sell it. CEOs can't afford any principles whether good or bad. I bet privatly he thinks: ' well, I thought I'd sell food but now demand seems to be shifting heavily to shit, I'll guess I'll put my money there and praise shit like there is no tomorrow.'
Yeah, governments are really neutral players because they would never jump on a scare wagon to justify extording yet even more money and controlling the lifes of their citizents in even more detail.
Yeah, please, you too, get your beta blockers ready and become all excited about nothing at all happening, but please leave me alone with shit like the kyoto-protocol that costs me real money to satisfy a delusional UN commitee. I am not the one forcing others to my believe.
"None of the serious climate models indicate an ice age as a consequence of increased CO2."
I didn't say that. The english is way too sophisticated for me. I did say that the evidence for global warming is still inconclusive. So I guess I am still uncrompromised on the model position. I would like to see a good reply.
Your improbable wandering black hole is remarkably similar to the asteroid paranoia. No its not. Eventhough it's a very remote possiblity, it hasn't happend to the solar system or earth yet ( as is evident from us still being abel to post to slashdot). Asteroids are a very real and certain danger as was quite visible when those huge rocks crashed into jupiter in 1997 or what year it was. Also, travel everywhere on earth and you will likely always be able to visit some huge ass crater that is a left over off a previous impact. Still, I am not in favour of spending (or for that matter collecting) any tax money at all but if I had to pick between
Climate change:
Is it happening? Uncertain
Is it harmful? Maybe
Could our best effords change anything? Probably not
Asteroid: Is it likely? It has repeatedly happened on earth and is continuesly happening throughout the solar system. Is it harmful? well, yes it gets nasty at really small sizes. Can we avoid it? yeah, with enough time to react
put me down for even a single yes.
it's a theory! Some guy pulled it out of his ass and wrote a paper that this could, in theory, happen. In theory a wandering black hole could come ripping through our solar system and you are not getting excited about that. Why?
As the facts are, oceanic circulation has not been shown to *ever* have been suspended. As has been pointed out in refutations to the movie you mention, oceanic circulation is a function of 'static' liquid on a moving surface ( or vice verca if you are so inclined), and nothing short of stopping the earth from spinning could affect them.
You are citing predictions from models that aren't able to model the climate right now. Those models leave out millions of unkown variables and use dozens of variables that are known but not understood and therefore just assumed. Just by manipulating the later, you are able to make the model predict *whatever* climate you would like. And you really think it is wise to base public policy on this?
all the while YOU are pushing your pro-green, anti-civilisation propaganda that is, right now, robbing us of our money as well. There is no conclusive evidence for any of the following:
;)
- Global warming is happening
- global warming is happening because of man
- current global warming exceeds or will exceed previous warm periods
- Global warming will do any harm at all, except creating different weather patterns than we are used to
- Global warming can be affected by anything we might do except kill 5 billion humans and let the rest life in caves again ( no fire though)
- Greenhouses that kill people
What you are talking about is only certain for people that look for yet another reason to raise taxes. In science, there is no absolute certainty.
you are a zealot. Man, stand back and think about what 'greenhouse' means before applying the word as a generic negative. Say 'greenhouse effect'.
Also, the 'breathing underwater' makes no sense in connection to global warming since breathing CO2 is perfectly healthy as long as you still keep enough O2 ( the lack of which has not been identified as a global problem yet, I wonder when the hysteria will take off) around. Also plants and therefore animals very much like CO2 as you might remember from biology classes.
Yeah, I guess they know that asteroids are just as dangerous to us as windmills were to Don.
It's funny, they are wasting *our* tax money, they know it and even have the nerve to lable the projects accordingly.
No, but initially you want to find things you share with the other person. After that accepting points of view, hobbies etc. becomes easier because her evaluation of you will have gone from 0 to +5 Interesting.