Actually there are lots of PCs running windows in similar roles as well (never used for google requests).
The Google Zeitgeist measure was actually very believable, whether you like it or not. No one has made a good case of outright and systematic bias against Mac/OS and Linux.
For Linux users its lack of movement was telling everybody who wanted to hear that Linux on the desktop just wasn't happenning.
You upgraded once and it worked, good for you. Now wait until some new shiny software+hardware platform is made by somebody in 5 year's time on which iTunes doesn't work.
Or upgrade to Linux tomorrow. What are your options?
You are not giving much credit to Jon. I think his skills are a bit rarer than you say. His work on DVD encryption wasn't simply a question of getting lucky; he has done more now with his iTMS work, which proves he wasn't a single-hit wonder.
Combine this with his "you can't touch me" cocky attitude that has been validated in the courts, I personnally think Jon is one of a kind.
My terminology was wrong but the idea is correct. A HT/SMT CPU like the P-IV there are two "logical" fake CPUs which can each use half of the scheduling queue.
That there are two or seven execution units after the scheduling queue doesn't matter because the non-SMT architecture has the same number. SMT/HT is a quick and easy way to make better use of the scheduling queue, it does not provide much more resources, and in some instances performance can actually degrade if the OS does not make use of the specificities of HT/SMT for single-threaded applications. This is in fact the case under Linux 2.4.x.
The point remains that HT/SMT is an interesting idea but does not deliver as much parallelism as a dual-core system, by a long shot, and the O/S has to support it.
SMT/HT is not that cheap, notice the price difference between HT-PIV and Athlon64 at similar performance level. It would seems that based on this sample HT/SMT is significantly more expensive than a 64-bit architecture, doubling the number of registers, a better FSB and a more efficient FPU.
On-die dual-core architectures don't have to take twice as much silicon as single-core. Most space on the silicon is taken by the cache not by the instruction logic.
In this case it is very simple. If you are the guilty party and the judge orders you to speak, then you either speak and are found guilty of the crime and do the time for it, or you do not speak and you do the time for contempt of court.
Either way you end up in prison, but since you were guilty to start with this is not unjust.
How does the "modern JIT optimizer" knows whether the comparison of i to the array length is correct and therefore knows when it can safely optimize away the bounds check ?
If that were possible, how come we don't have the same "modern optimization" in C/C++ and thereby rid ourselves of the dreaded off-by-one error?
Hyperthreading is marketing-speak. An "hyperthreading" CPU is simply a fake dual-cpu with a dual input pipe and only a single execution unit.
An "hyperthreading" CPU performs much worse at multi-threading than a real dual-CPU architecture. Typically you'll only see a 30% improvement in performance on parallel algorithms such as rendering, whereas a true dual-CPU machine will achieve near 100% improvement under the same conditions.
Where are you getting your information from? I'm reading everywhere that the housing bubble is worse in Australia than in Europe or America, see this article for example, and that is certainly my own impression too.
In fact I recently left Australia because I couldn't afford a house there, by a long shot.
The RIAA itself thinks free download definitely and negatively affect music sales. They are so convinced of that "fact" that they are suing their own customers over this.
Free download advocates pretend the opposite is happening, that people "sample" the music via the internet as if it were the radio of (not so) old, but still buy CDs of the music they do like.
Myself I do believe that downloading music does affect music sales, but not nearly to the same extent that the RIAA pretends. The internet is indeed just another medium people listen to music through. People used to make taped copies of the music shows they enjoyed on the radio and listen to them on their walkman, and nobody in their right mind complained about it.
People still bought LPs and CDs because of the quality difference and availability.
If anything the Internet makes it easier for people to sample different kinds of music which do translate into sales. In this view the RIAA and the Internet are not competing.
The Internet and the RIAA are in competition for the distribution however.
More precisely, the more the RIAA works on being an obnoxious monopoly for the diffusion of new and interesting music, the higher the likelihood that this will not happen, through entirely legal means.
New bands are already putting their music on their web site for all to hear and making money on the gigs. Except for a few superstars, this model is proving more flexible than the death by contract the RIAA demands from small aspiring bands.
Success can and does come from word of mouth. Shortly will we have superstars bands who debuted and got famous on the web. The RIAA will come knocking on their door and not the other way around, and either they are going to be told to fsck off, or the famous band will be able to write their own contract.
In other words the heady days of fat cats making money off exploiting small aspiring bands may shortly be over, and not a moment too soon.
On the other hand few talented musicians are good business people too, and as history told us many times are likely to be exploited no matter what the circumstances (cue Elvis Presley, Janis Ian, etc).
The point is that the RIAA aren't a monopoly any more. They are competing with "free" downloads.
The other points are that "free" downloads are not free. You need to spend time searching for songs, wading through the crap, learning new tools as the RIAA fight the old ones, and there is a risk of getting caught, etc.
The final point of the article is that legal music distributors can regain the advantage if they offer a cheap, quality service as a competition to the eDonkeys of the world.
Hence there is competition going on, and as long as the RIAA doesn't understand it at that level, the situation will not improve for them.
I'd say there is *probably* a way, but it has not been implemented yet to my knowledge.
Hinting has improved on my RedHat machine (which I'm sure isn't breaking the law), but it is still inferior to OS/X aqua (NOT quickdraw, which is really really bad). What really kills X11 is that so many older applications don't have any notion of hinting or antialiasing, (X)Emacs first among them.
Emacs on OS/X has antialiasing/hinting, and it is glorious.
I believe you, the GCC maintainer are pretty conservative. Maybe it is time for a new initiative along the line of the old EGCS, that eventually became GCC-3.0
On the other than in my experience the GCC version from Apple is *seriously* less stable than plain old gcc, even the newest releases. It tends to produce code that crashes more.
Because money given == control. The gov would then like to have a say in everything the IEEE does, and over time it would not be possible to refuse them.
Fair enough, but the shuffle is cheaper, has more memory to start with and is compatible with iTMS, so the Roxio is not uniformly better in all respects.
The shuttle focuses on playback and simplicity, which is a quality of its own. Someone might very well decide that the features you list are useless extras that get in the way.
All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons to prefer the shuttle. Your choice is good also.
It will only work if TS sources are not anonymous, which no one knows for the moment.
Even if they are not anonymous, this will not stop future leaks for the reason outline in the parent post. Yes it will punish people for past deeds but this is unproductive, especially from the PR point of view. Note that a lot of people associated with Apple have recently voice a strong opinion along the line of "this action is stupid and will get Apple nowhere".
I'm no particular fan of Apple's players or DRM either, but explain to me how 256MB capacity and $149 are respectively twice the features and half the cost?
Apple sells their 512MB player for $99. For the price of the 512MB Lexar player you can buy the 4GB Apple mini-iPod.
FYI the iPods play mp3 too, and few complain about their sound quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there are lots of PCs running windows in similar roles as well (never used for google requests).
The Google Zeitgeist measure was actually very believable, whether you like it or not. No one has made a good case of outright and systematic bias against Mac/OS and Linux.
For Linux users its lack of movement was telling everybody who wanted to hear that Linux on the desktop just wasn't happenning.
Right,
This makes perfect business sense. Let's stop our customers buying at our store.
Yes you need to go on because this is no a solution Apple will implement.
You upgraded once and it worked, good for you. Now wait until some new shiny software+hardware platform is made by somebody in 5 year's time on which iTunes doesn't work.
Or upgrade to Linux tomorrow. What are your options?
You are not giving much credit to Jon. I think his skills are a bit rarer than you say. His work on DVD encryption wasn't simply a question of getting lucky; he has done more now with his iTMS work, which proves he wasn't a single-hit wonder.
Combine this with his "you can't touch me" cocky attitude that has been validated in the courts, I personnally think Jon is one of a kind.
In the absense of a *specific* law that was voted since the precedent that applies to the case, the judge *has* to take into account the precedent.
Doing the opposite would be going against a principle of law that says that the law applies equally to all people.
AFAICS (and I've just tried) Camino still doesn't support automated proxy configurations, eg load a .pac file from the Network preferences.
Works with Safari and Mozilla but nothing else so far.
Then users will respond with more stealthy ways to conduct P2P trading. Those that don't require a tracker for example.
What, you are not running Gentoo or Debian Unstable and downloading 100 of MB of patches every day ?
Hand back your geek card this minute.
More seriously the next legal bandwidth sink is VoIP, soon to be followed by the other VoIP, as in video.
My terminology was wrong but the idea is correct. A HT/SMT CPU like the P-IV there are two "logical" fake CPUs which can each use half of the scheduling queue.
That there are two or seven execution units after the scheduling queue doesn't matter because the non-SMT architecture has the same number. SMT/HT is a quick and easy way to make better use of the scheduling queue, it does not provide much more resources, and in some instances performance can actually degrade if the OS does not make use of the specificities of HT/SMT for single-threaded applications. This is in fact the case under Linux 2.4.x.
The point remains that HT/SMT is an interesting idea but does not deliver as much parallelism as a dual-core system, by a long shot, and the O/S has to support it.
SMT/HT is not that cheap, notice the price difference between HT-PIV and Athlon64 at similar performance level. It would seems that based on this sample HT/SMT is significantly more expensive than a 64-bit architecture, doubling the number of registers, a better FSB and a more efficient FPU.
On-die dual-core architectures don't have to take twice as much silicon as single-core. Most space on the silicon is taken by the cache not by the instruction logic.
Yes, I agreee, however you are talking about unusual people here, and not exactly a small sacrifice.
In this case it is very simple. If you are the guilty party and the judge orders you to speak, then you either speak and are found guilty of the crime and do the time for it, or you do not speak and you do the time for contempt of court.
Either way you end up in prison, but since you were guilty to start with this is not unjust.
How does the "modern JIT optimizer" knows whether the comparison of i to the array length is correct and therefore knows when it can safely optimize away the bounds check ?
If that were possible, how come we don't have the same "modern optimization" in C/C++ and thereby rid ourselves of the dreaded off-by-one error?
In other words I don't believe you.
Yes this is absolutely excellent.
I'm feeling a whole lot better now that I know why I pay 5 times as much for my blank DVDs than in some neighboring countries.
Hyperthreading is marketing-speak. An "hyperthreading" CPU is simply a fake dual-cpu with a dual input pipe and only a single execution unit.
An "hyperthreading" CPU performs much worse at multi-threading than a real dual-CPU architecture. Typically you'll only see a 30% improvement in performance on parallel algorithms such as rendering, whereas a true dual-CPU machine will achieve near 100% improvement under the same conditions.
Where are you getting your information from? I'm reading everywhere that the housing bubble is worse in Australia than in Europe or America, see this article for example, and that is certainly my own impression too.
In fact I recently left Australia because I couldn't afford a house there, by a long shot.
I hear that the Beatles songs are still pretty popular.
The RIAA itself thinks free download definitely and negatively affect music sales. They are so convinced of that "fact" that they are suing their own customers over this.
Free download advocates pretend the opposite is happening, that people "sample" the music via the internet as if it were the radio of (not so) old, but still buy CDs of the music they do like.
Myself I do believe that downloading music does affect music sales, but not nearly to the same extent that the RIAA pretends. The internet is indeed just another medium people listen to music through. People used to make taped copies of the music shows they enjoyed on the radio and listen to them on their walkman, and nobody in their right mind complained about it.
People still bought LPs and CDs because of the quality difference and availability.
If anything the Internet makes it easier for people to sample different kinds of music which do translate into sales. In this view the RIAA and the Internet are not competing.
The Internet and the RIAA are in competition for the distribution however.
More precisely, the more the RIAA works on being an obnoxious monopoly for the diffusion of new and interesting music, the higher the likelihood that this will not happen, through entirely legal means.
New bands are already putting their music on their web site for all to hear and making money on the gigs. Except for a few superstars, this model is proving more flexible than the death by contract the RIAA demands from small aspiring bands.
Success can and does come from word of mouth. Shortly will we have superstars bands who debuted and got famous on the web. The RIAA will come knocking on their door and not the other way around, and either they are going to be told to fsck off, or the famous band will be able to write their own contract.
In other words the heady days of fat cats making money off exploiting small aspiring bands may shortly be over, and not a moment too soon.
On the other hand few talented musicians are good business people too, and as history told us many times are likely to be exploited no matter what the circumstances (cue Elvis Presley, Janis Ian, etc).
The point is that the RIAA aren't a monopoly any more. They are competing with "free" downloads.
The other points are that "free" downloads are not free. You need to spend time searching for songs, wading through the crap, learning new tools as the RIAA fight the old ones, and there is a risk of getting caught, etc.
The final point of the article is that legal music distributors can regain the advantage if they offer a cheap, quality service as a competition to the eDonkeys of the world.
Hence there is competition going on, and as long as the RIAA doesn't understand it at that level, the situation will not improve for them.
Wintel hardware is like US TV. More than a hundred channels, and nothing on.
I'd say there is *probably* a way, but it has not been implemented yet to my knowledge.
Hinting has improved on my RedHat machine (which I'm sure isn't breaking the law), but it is still inferior to OS/X aqua (NOT quickdraw, which is really really bad). What really kills X11 is that so many older applications don't have any notion of hinting or antialiasing, (X)Emacs first among them.
Emacs on OS/X has antialiasing/hinting, and it is glorious.
I believe you, the GCC maintainer are pretty conservative. Maybe it is time for a new initiative along the line of the old EGCS, that eventually became GCC-3.0
On the other than in my experience the GCC version from Apple is *seriously* less stable than plain old gcc, even the newest releases. It tends to produce code that crashes more.
Because money given == control. The gov would then like to have a say in everything the IEEE does, and over time it would not be possible to refuse them.
Fair enough, but the shuffle is cheaper, has more memory to start with and is compatible with iTMS, so the Roxio is not uniformly better in all respects.
The shuttle focuses on playback and simplicity, which is a quality of its own. Someone might very well decide that the features you list are useless extras that get in the way.
All I'm saying is that there are valid reasons to prefer the shuttle. Your choice is good also.
It will only work if TS sources are not anonymous, which no one knows for the moment.
Even if they are not anonymous, this will not stop future leaks for the reason outline in the parent post. Yes it will punish people for past deeds but this is unproductive, especially from the PR point of view. Note that a lot of people associated with Apple have recently voice a strong opinion along the line of "this action is stupid and will get Apple nowhere".
I'm no particular fan of Apple's players or DRM either, but explain to me how
256MB capacity and $149 are respectively twice the features and half the cost?
Apple sells their 512MB player for $99. For the price of the 512MB Lexar player you can buy the 4GB Apple mini-iPod.
FYI the iPods play mp3 too, and few complain about their sound quality.