I agree the current global warming science lacks a lot of, well, science. I think it's better than the ozone hole stuff, but it's far from iron-clad.
I have to admit I am a bit skeptical about the global warming stuff, since I too remember in the 70s how we were told of the concerns of global cooling. And I also remember how when I moved to California in 1993, the lack of rain was due to global warming, while now the huge amount of rain we receive is said to be due to global warming. And don't forget the ever-popular blaming of two more active hurricane seasons than normal on global warming.
Global warming is a Chupacabra. Everything we see that can't (and perhaps needent) be explained is blamed on it.
I'm not writing it off though, global warming might be true. And it might even be man-made. I don't know if I buy the end of the world (huge sea level changes) theories though, since if the planet's system were that unstable, it wouldn't have stayed so similar though years of sunspot/waxing/waning cycles and countless volcanic eruptions.
I want to say first I very much appreciate someone who considers others' points of view, explains their own observations and states their conclusions, along with a statement of how they feel this affects the discussion. This is in stark contrast the the regular "you are a moron, you're wrong and your mom is ugly" stuff you usually see on the internet.
But your observations do not prove me wrong. I wish to explain why your observations do not contradict my assertions.
I also have a GSM phone and asked a friend who made GSM phones for a company (at the time, he works somewhere else now) which sells handsets into the US market. He explained how it works.
GSM towers tell your phone what time zone you are in (actually offset from UTC). So, in your case, you set the time correctly when you were in Britain, your phone also knew the time zone there, that your offset was +0 (I'm assuming). When you get off the plane here, your phone sees that the UTC offset is -500 (on the east coast, Eastern Daylight time). So your phone adjust the time by 5 hours, and now the time is as correct here as it was back in Britain.
But at no time did a US tower actually tell your phone the true time. If your phone was 5 minutes fast in Britain it would now be 5 minutes fast here. This is how GSM phones adjust for daylight savings here in the US. The tower tells the phone the new offset and it adjusts.
Some US operators ship their phones with this feature turned off. Cingular appears to, and if you turn it on, your phone goes nutty around the daylight savings start/end periods. This is because some towers start telling your phone you are in (in my case) -800+100 DST and others tell you you are in -700. And the phone keeps asking if you want to update over and over each time it sees a new tower if it uses the opposite scheme than the last, even though the time doesn't change!
You could try this out by making your phone 5 minutes off before going back to Britain at the end of your vacation. It might not work though because my friend told me that GSM does include the ability for the towers to send the actual time (and the phone he made implements it), just that in the US no operator does it. It might be that in Britain the operators do send the time and your phone will thus get on track.
Again, I appreciate your reasoned reply and not some screeching condemnation (like the other responder posted for example).
The system you say towers are being converter from is called "TDMA" by some people (including yourself), but is actually called IS-136. When I used the term TDMA, it was referring to the system of signalling used by (or IS-136). This system requires that both the tower and the handset sync their time perfectly. So any handset can keep time as well as the towers can, which is perfect, as the towers are synced to UTC. However, the handsets in the US don't actually know the time. You just set the time once and they advance it, like a watch does. On CDMA, the system sends the actual time to the handset.
You need to stop getting your information from MS fanboys.
I am currently writing this post on a computer with a Dell 2405FPW monitor. It is 1920x1200x60fps (progressive) and it is connected to my computer with DVI, single-link DVI.
I have two friends who have Sharp 45" HDTVs. These are direct-view LCDs with full HD resolution (1920x1080). These TVs have 1080p (1920x1080x60fps) HDMI inputs.
This year at E3 I played Gran Turismo in Sony's both. This was a special version on the PS3. It was playing at 1920x1080x60fps ON A PS3.
It is ATSC that doesn't support 1920x1080x60fps progressive. ATSC is the standard (in the US) for transmitting digital (including HD) television over the air to an antenna. It compresses video using MPEG-2 and signals it over 8VSB to fit an HD channel into a 6MHz of RF bandwidth slot. ATSC supports many resolutions, including 1280x720x60 progressive frames per second, 1920x1080x60 interlaced fields per second and 1920x1080x30 progressive frames per second.
DVI (and HDMI) do not use MPEG-2 or 8VSB and do not compress video at all. As such, it takes over 150MHz of bandwidth to display 1920x1080x60 progressive frames per second. But, it can do it and even more.
You need to get a better source of info. Remember, Microsoft press releases (which said 1080p/60 wouldn't work on PS3) are an awful source of info about the PS3, just like Sony press releases are a bad source of info about 360.
It first goes ahead and assume Cell will cost a lot more than (for example) the CPU in Xbox 360. There's no reason to think so. Cell is not a monster chip, it's similar in transistor count to the PS3 GPU, the Xbox 360 GPU and the Xbox 360 CPU.
Second, the article assumes Sony made decisions which made the PS3 more expensive around the end of last year when 360s were selling for $700 on eBay. Whether $700 is a reasonable price for a console or not, PS3 was already set in stone before 360 even came out. The 360 availability fiasco didn't enter into any of the technical decisions.
Both of those things being said, I think $600 is an awful price.
That's the MicroTac 950 (550 if you had the 7-segment display, 950 for dot-matrix).
Those phones sucked.
I had the super-duper version, the MicroTac Ultra Lite (yours couldn't be a Lite or Ultra Lite since those had green displays).
You forget that the battery wouldn't even last all day (unless you used the inch-thick version) even if you didn't talk on it at all. It didn't have voice mail notification. It had no caller ID. And it didn't have a vibrating ring (but my Ultra Lite did, the first phone that did).
As to the poster who replied, the StarTac was far from a tank, the hinges were very vulnurable and the antennas broke off constantly. They were easy to use though.
I replace my MicroTac Ultra Lite with a Nokia 2185. The Nokia 2100 series. It was much better, had a good address book (for the time), a good display, the battery lasted for two days and it had a readable display for caller ID use.
I never had a Nokia 6100 or 5100, but if you ask me, those were the ultimate simple phone. Small, incredibly easy to use, great UI, good buttons. Antenna didn't break off too often. And the battery lasted for a couple days.
My father had a Nokia 5120 (or 40 or 60, one of the IS-136 TDMA phones on Cingular) until last year. He really loved that phone. And for good reason.
They keep time perfectly, because TDMA (GSM) is built around dividing time into precise parts. Also, in most areas, they'll even adjust the time when daylight savings occurs. But they don't actually sync the time.
So, on GSM in the US, if you set your phone 5 mins fast, it'll stay 5 mins fast forever.
CDMA (Cingular/Verizon) do sync the time. You just turn your phone on and it picks up the time from the service.
The Xbox model was not to give a small team the freedom to create.
The hardware design was done by two guys who don't even work for MS, they work for a joint design and manufacturing company. The software was done in-house, but by a larger team. The Xbox OS is a derivative of (Windows) NT. Additionally, they spent untold dollars buying Bungie, RARE, Oddworld Inhabitants and other companies.
In other words, they largely followed the model you say sucks. They spent a lot of money on acquisitions, only one of which worked out (and even the Bungie Crew is all gone to Wideload and WildTangent now except for Jason Jones). And the kicker, they've so far lost a truckload of money.
It doesn't sound like the right model to me. If the Xbox team ever turns a profit it'll be because Sony are such boneheads, not because of the excellence of the Xbox model.
Greenhouse effect comes from CO2 and H2O emissions.
The ozone hole thing was kind of crappy science anyway, when the sensors were created to look at the ozone layer, the hole was already there. There's no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there. And my understanding is it shrunk in Winter 2004-2005 versus Winter 2003-2004.
Plus, the angle the light hits the atmosphere there at the pole is so low that the UV is filtered out anyway, without the need for a thick UV layer (think of how at sunset when you view the sun at a low angle through more atmosphere the blue/violet is filtered out and so the sky turns orange).
The greenhouse effect is something different. The total scope of it is perhaps a bit up in the air too, but knocks against the ozone situation do not undermine the greenhouse effect.
Something I didn't notice initially, this is a 65nm version of P4 EE. So it likely takes a lot less power than the usual hog 90nm versions of EE.
Still, I think it does indicate how AMD's architecture is a bit behind the times, and they are stretching it with clock speeds, just like Intel did with P4.
Hopefully (like Intel finally did) AMD will debut a new architecture soon that changes this.
Saying you can read TIFF is like saying you can read XML. You can read some TIFFs. You can parse them all, but can you decode the data in them usefull? Often, the answer is no.
Look at a program that supports TIFF and they'll say [JPEG, LZW LE, blah blah] after it because TIFF can include nearly any type of data, and no program can support all types of data, only the ones that it knew about when the program was written (at most).
The problem is it becomes a dicey proposition to archive stuff in TIFF because you don't know for sure if other programs will be able to read them.
Also, TIFF supports JPEG, although it was not "originally to have included it" since TIFF predates JPEG by many years. Photoshop will save a TIFF-JPEG file, or at least it would at one time (since JPEG predates JFIF).
Okay, California is more snobby than the midwest, but California is about 1% as snobby as any place up in the Northeast.
Austin sounds nice, but on the other hand, your comments on it sound kind of, well, snobby. Like braggin on Whole Foods. I'm glad for ya. Why would I care which is the first Whole Foods? Does that make it better?
As to why that area is called Silicon Hills: It's because someone wanted to call it that. Not because of some measure of success. There's Silicon Fenn, Silicon Glen, Silicon Alley and a lot of other places too. All of them have had some success and rightly so, but to say you have to pass some kind of test before you get to make up a nickname for your city is bizarre.
In the US sales tax varies by state. Some states don't have sales tax at all. And even if your state does have sales tax, some people are very good at avoiding paying it (by ordering from another state).
So yeah, for the typical case you might want to compare prices by adding sales tax to the price. But for the crafty consumer, sales tax is avoidable, and so you won't be representing what they pay very well.
Perhaps this news should be held until the results can be studied before. This sounds very similar to the L-Dopa results years ago (see the movie "Awakenings" for the Cliff Notes). The problem was that the results were not permanent. And that may very well be the case this time too.
Look at the graphs at the bottom, the increase in power when the CPU is loaded is presumably due to the CPU. The EE adds 80W when going to peak power, the AMDs add almost 90W. Make of it what you will. To me it looks like the AMD is a hog. I say this because I know the EE is a hog.
I dunno why you list 130W as AMDs TDP. Are you considering that a good thing? That's an assload! My entire system doesn't take that, counting inefficiencies. (and I have an Athlon X2).
Clock-for-clock, Intel is beating AMD with Core Duo. In performance per Watt, they are KILLING them. AMD does win out on the top end, because Intel doesn't have high-end chips out yet. This will probably change when Core 2 Duo comes out.
The Intel chip beats the AMD in every test that measures CPU performance. It only falls to even or a bit worse in tests which test primarily the speed of peripherals.
If you are looking at an Athlon X2 4400+ or below and you don't need 64-bit, you're making a big mistake buying an AMD. The Intel is superior. That's why I say "clock-for-clock". If you need a processor in the speed range that Intel covers with Core Duo, the Core Duo is the winner. They just top out at 2.16GHz (almost the same speed as my Athlon X2 4200+), so if you want more performance than that, you have to go to AMD (because going to P4 makes zero sense).
If what we hear about Core 2 Duo is correct, AMD won't have much left to crow about next week. Intel will have 64-bit in Core 2 Duo. AMD willl be beat on performance/Watt. They'll be beat on performance/MHz. They'll be beat on performance in multiprocessing situations. They'll be beat on performance "at any cost" (max performance). If they're lucky, AMD will keep the performance/dollar measure. That's a pretty big fall for a company that had a clear edge just a few months ago.
I don't have anything against AMD. My primary machine is an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and I love it. And it was exactly the right thing to buy at the time. But that's changed for the mainstream today, and it look like it'll change for the top end too next week.
I wish AMD the best. I hope they have something up their sleeve to top Intel again. But AM2 isn't it. I really hope they can get to 65nm (and presumably competitiveness on power) sooner than the December they state.
It wouldn't even boot my computer. And it was a 430W. I now use a 380W Antec. Works great. I previously ran a 3.0GHz P4 (Northwood, not the more power-hungry later ones) and an NVidia 6800 Ultra (one of the most power hungry video cards ever built) plus two hard drives and two optical drives off a 380W Antec. I had to add a fan on the front of my computer to keep the temps down though. But it worked great. Not sure why people buy 500W and 600W power supplies.
I wanted to get an Antec Neo HE also, as they are 85% efficient. But it appears they have problems running my motherboard (Asus A8N SLI Deluxe).
I also have a Kill-A-Watt. You find out interesting things like my computer uses no less power in S3 (suspend to ram) than it does when shut down. My previous computer uses 5W in S3 or shut down, sadly, my new one takes 10W.
I run a relatively beefy Athlon 64 X2 4200+, but I use AMD Cool n' Quiet and only one hard drive and it's difficult to get the machine to take more than 85W, unless I start up a game.
We're comparing the latest from each competitor. That's completely fair. If AMD doesn't want to look bad in comparison, they need to catch up on technology.
From what I understand, AMD will not have 65nm chips until December. That means they won't be catching up soon.
When we compare apples to apples (the P4 line to the K8 line) Intel actually uses more power, generates more heat, runs slower, and is more expensive.
Apples to Apples will change next week when Core 2 Duo comes out. And already, if you compare Core Duo to AMD's chips at the same clock speed, the Core Duo is faster and uses less power.
But here's the sick part. Read hothardware's review. They include a Pentium Extreme Edition 3.73GHz in their tests. It runs neck and neck in the tests (except in gaming where it gets shellacked). But the final test is power consumption. At the wall socket at least, the AM2 CPU appears to use more power than the Pentium EE 3.73GHz.
If you can't do better on power consumption than the most power-hungry P4 out there, you should go to the back of the line.
It's clear AMD is behind Intel at the moment. I really hope they catch up and pass them. We've benefited from the competition and I don't want to see it end.
"the entertainment, as hinted in the article, will get cold feet an renege on what turns out to be a gentleman's agreement only, and goes ahead with the ICT anyway."
Sony has already said they won't use it, and they have plenty of reason to follow up on that, given that they will be selling HDMI-less players.
If some or most movies play just fine over component, but some don't, the publisher of those that don't will take it in the butt in the marketplace. People just won't buy their discs, because they suspect they won't be able to play them.
So I figured that the agreement will hold for a while at least.
Then the EULA that uses isn't restricting either. It's giving permissions. When they snuck in language that said you couldn't use Visual Studio to make a spreadsheet (i.e. compete with Excel), they weren't restricting, they were giving you permissions. You should feel lucky to be allowed to use Visual Studio at all.
Thanks for realigning my thinking. Now I'm much more appreciative of SCO. I mean, they didn't have to let me use Linux at all, now they want to enable me to do it, for a small fee.
The GPL restricts. That's the whole point of a license. If you didn't want to restrict, you'd put it in the public domain. Then you truly could do whatever you want with it.
Someone GPLs something instead of giving it away because they want to maintain some forms of control over it. It is there to restrict. Some may say the restrictions are good things, that's not for me to judge.
The problem is that I think that certain people in the US and other places would like to reserve these certain byproducts as evidence of intent to make nuclear weapons.
It's like guns. In the US, guns are legal, so having guns and just transporting them cannot really be punished. However, this hinders catching people who have an intent to use the guns to do harm ("bad things"). Because just having the gun isn't an indication of anything.
Now imagine if guns were criminalized. In theory, anyone who had a gun could pretty much be automatically assumed to intend to do harm with it. Because those who didn't have such intent wouldn't go out of the way to break the law in having them.
I think these people think that keeping a lid on breeder reactors means that you can assume that anyone who builds one and has the enriched results of one is going to make a bomb with it. That has both an effect of reducing the amount of highly enriched fuel available and also helps you find the potential wrongdoers.
Now, I'm not saying this is actually practical (nor the guns example), but I think that is how the people involved in the regulations think it can be done. I would presume they would re-enrich the used fuel in fewer, more secure locations. And those locations would presumably never highly enrich it so that it could be used for bomb.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the current global warming science lacks a lot of, well, science. I think it's better than the ozone hole stuff, but it's far from iron-clad.
I have to admit I am a bit skeptical about the global warming stuff, since I too remember in the 70s how we were told of the concerns of global cooling. And I also remember how when I moved to California in 1993, the lack of rain was due to global warming, while now the huge amount of rain we receive is said to be due to global warming. And don't forget the ever-popular blaming of two more active hurricane seasons than normal on global warming.
Global warming is a Chupacabra. Everything we see that can't (and perhaps needent) be explained is blamed on it.
I'm not writing it off though, global warming might be true. And it might even be man-made. I don't know if I buy the end of the world (huge sea level changes) theories though, since if the planet's system were that unstable, it wouldn't have stayed so similar though years of sunspot/waxing/waning cycles and countless volcanic eruptions.
I want to say first I very much appreciate someone who considers others' points of view, explains their own observations and states their conclusions, along with a statement of how they feel this affects the discussion. This is in stark contrast the the regular "you are a moron, you're wrong and your mom is ugly" stuff you usually see on the internet.
But your observations do not prove me wrong. I wish to explain why your observations do not contradict my assertions.
I also have a GSM phone and asked a friend who made GSM phones for a company (at the time, he works somewhere else now) which sells handsets into the US market. He explained how it works.
GSM towers tell your phone what time zone you are in (actually offset from UTC). So, in your case, you set the time correctly when you were in Britain, your phone also knew the time zone there, that your offset was +0 (I'm assuming). When you get off the plane here, your phone sees that the UTC offset is -500 (on the east coast, Eastern Daylight time). So your phone adjust the time by 5 hours, and now the time is as correct here as it was back in Britain.
But at no time did a US tower actually tell your phone the true time. If your phone was 5 minutes fast in Britain it would now be 5 minutes fast here. This is how GSM phones adjust for daylight savings here in the US. The tower tells the phone the new offset and it adjusts.
Some US operators ship their phones with this feature turned off. Cingular appears to, and if you turn it on, your phone goes nutty around the daylight savings start/end periods. This is because some towers start telling your phone you are in (in my case) -800+100 DST and others tell you you are in -700. And the phone keeps asking if you want to update over and over each time it sees a new tower if it uses the opposite scheme than the last, even though the time doesn't change!
You could try this out by making your phone 5 minutes off before going back to Britain at the end of your vacation. It might not work though because my friend told me that GSM does include the ability for the towers to send the actual time (and the phone he made implements it), just that in the US no operator does it. It might be that in Britain the operators do send the time and your phone will thus get on track.
Again, I appreciate your reasoned reply and not some screeching condemnation (like the other responder posted for example).
TDMA is digital. AMPS and NAMPS are analog.
TDMA is the signalling system used in (pre-3G) GSM.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDMA
The system you say towers are being converter from is called "TDMA" by some people (including yourself), but is actually called IS-136. When I used the term TDMA, it was referring to the system of signalling used by (or IS-136). This system requires that both the tower and the handset sync their time perfectly. So any handset can keep time as well as the towers can, which is perfect, as the towers are synced to UTC. However, the handsets in the US don't actually know the time. You just set the time once and they advance it, like a watch does. On CDMA, the system sends the actual time to the handset.
So much for factual content in your post.
You need to stop getting your information from MS fanboys.
I am currently writing this post on a computer with a Dell 2405FPW monitor. It is 1920x1200x60fps (progressive) and it is connected to my computer with DVI, single-link DVI.
I have two friends who have Sharp 45" HDTVs. These are direct-view LCDs with full HD resolution (1920x1080). These TVs have 1080p (1920x1080x60fps) HDMI inputs.
This year at E3 I played Gran Turismo in Sony's both. This was a special version on the PS3. It was playing at 1920x1080x60fps ON A PS3.
It is ATSC that doesn't support 1920x1080x60fps progressive. ATSC is the standard (in the US) for transmitting digital (including HD) television over the air to an antenna. It compresses video using MPEG-2 and signals it over 8VSB to fit an HD channel into a 6MHz of RF bandwidth slot. ATSC supports many resolutions, including 1280x720x60 progressive frames per second, 1920x1080x60 interlaced fields per second and 1920x1080x30 progressive frames per second.
DVI (and HDMI) do not use MPEG-2 or 8VSB and do not compress video at all. As such, it takes over 150MHz of bandwidth to display 1920x1080x60 progressive frames per second. But, it can do it and even more.
You need to get a better source of info. Remember, Microsoft press releases (which said 1080p/60 wouldn't work on PS3) are an awful source of info about the PS3, just like Sony press releases are a bad source of info about 360.
It first goes ahead and assume Cell will cost a lot more than (for example) the CPU in Xbox 360. There's no reason to think so. Cell is not a monster chip, it's similar in transistor count to the PS3 GPU, the Xbox 360 GPU and the Xbox 360 CPU.
Second, the article assumes Sony made decisions which made the PS3 more expensive around the end of last year when 360s were selling for $700 on eBay. Whether $700 is a reasonable price for a console or not, PS3 was already set in stone before 360 even came out. The 360 availability fiasco didn't enter into any of the technical decisions.
Both of those things being said, I think $600 is an awful price.
That's the MicroTac 950 (550 if you had the 7-segment display, 950 for dot-matrix).
Those phones sucked.
I had the super-duper version, the MicroTac Ultra Lite (yours couldn't be a Lite or Ultra Lite since those had green displays).
You forget that the battery wouldn't even last all day (unless you used the inch-thick version) even if you didn't talk on it at all. It didn't have voice mail notification. It had no caller ID. And it didn't have a vibrating ring (but my Ultra Lite did, the first phone that did).
As to the poster who replied, the StarTac was far from a tank, the hinges were very vulnurable and the antennas broke off constantly. They were easy to use though.
I replace my MicroTac Ultra Lite with a Nokia 2185. The Nokia 2100 series. It was much better, had a good address book (for the time), a good display, the battery lasted for two days and it had a readable display for caller ID use.
I never had a Nokia 6100 or 5100, but if you ask me, those were the ultimate simple phone. Small, incredibly easy to use, great UI, good buttons. Antenna didn't break off too often. And the battery lasted for a couple days.
My father had a Nokia 5120 (or 40 or 60, one of the IS-136 TDMA phones on Cingular) until last year. He really loved that phone. And for good reason.
At least in the US.
They keep time perfectly, because TDMA (GSM) is built around dividing time into precise parts. Also, in most areas, they'll even adjust the time when daylight savings occurs. But they don't actually sync the time.
So, on GSM in the US, if you set your phone 5 mins fast, it'll stay 5 mins fast forever.
CDMA (Cingular/Verizon) do sync the time. You just turn your phone on and it picks up the time from the service.
The Xbox model was not to give a small team the freedom to create.
The hardware design was done by two guys who don't even work for MS, they work for a joint design and manufacturing company. The software was done in-house, but by a larger team. The Xbox OS is a derivative of (Windows) NT. Additionally, they spent untold dollars buying Bungie, RARE, Oddworld Inhabitants and other companies.
In other words, they largely followed the model you say sucks. They spent a lot of money on acquisitions, only one of which worked out (and even the Bungie Crew is all gone to Wideload and WildTangent now except for Jason Jones). And the kicker, they've so far lost a truckload of money.
It doesn't sound like the right model to me. If the Xbox team ever turns a profit it'll be because Sony are such boneheads, not because of the excellence of the Xbox model.
Ozone hole comes from CFCs.
Greenhouse effect comes from CO2 and H2O emissions.
The ozone hole thing was kind of crappy science anyway, when the sensors were created to look at the ozone layer, the hole was already there. There's no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there. And my understanding is it shrunk in Winter 2004-2005 versus Winter 2003-2004.
Plus, the angle the light hits the atmosphere there at the pole is so low that the UV is filtered out anyway, without the need for a thick UV layer (think of how at sunset when you view the sun at a low angle through more atmosphere the blue/violet is filtered out and so the sky turns orange).
The greenhouse effect is something different. The total scope of it is perhaps a bit up in the air too, but knocks against the ozone situation do not undermine the greenhouse effect.
Something I didn't notice initially, this is a 65nm version of P4 EE. So it likely takes a lot less power than the usual hog 90nm versions of EE.
Still, I think it does indicate how AMD's architecture is a bit behind the times, and they are stretching it with clock speeds, just like Intel did with P4.
Hopefully (like Intel finally did) AMD will debut a new architecture soon that changes this.
TIFF has a problem: it's too flexible.
Saying you can read TIFF is like saying you can read XML. You can read some TIFFs. You can parse them all, but can you decode the data in them usefull? Often, the answer is no.
Look at a program that supports TIFF and they'll say [JPEG, LZW LE, blah blah] after it because TIFF can include nearly any type of data, and no program can support all types of data, only the ones that it knew about when the program was written (at most).
The problem is it becomes a dicey proposition to archive stuff in TIFF because you don't know for sure if other programs will be able to read them.
Also, TIFF supports JPEG, although it was not "originally to have included it" since TIFF predates JPEG by many years. Photoshop will save a TIFF-JPEG file, or at least it would at one time (since JPEG predates JFIF).
Have you ever been anywhere?
Okay, California is more snobby than the midwest, but California is about 1% as snobby as any place up in the Northeast.
Austin sounds nice, but on the other hand, your comments on it sound kind of, well, snobby. Like braggin on Whole Foods. I'm glad for ya. Why would I care which is the first Whole Foods? Does that make it better?
As to why that area is called Silicon Hills: It's because someone wanted to call it that. Not because of some measure of success. There's Silicon Fenn, Silicon Glen, Silicon Alley and a lot of other places too. All of them have had some success and rightly so, but to say you have to pass some kind of test before you get to make up a nickname for your city is bizarre.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=27 62&p=11
The FX-62 taking the same power (at the wall) as the P4 EE under load.
Very sad for AMD. They've resorted to performance though power-sucking, the same thing everyone crapped on Intel for with P4.
In the US sales tax varies by state. Some states don't have sales tax at all. And even if your state does have sales tax, some people are very good at avoiding paying it (by ordering from another state).
So yeah, for the typical case you might want to compare prices by adding sales tax to the price. But for the crafty consumer, sales tax is avoidable, and so you won't be representing what they pay very well.
Perhaps this news should be held until the results can be studied before. This sounds very similar to the L-Dopa results years ago (see the movie "Awakenings" for the Cliff Notes). The problem was that the results were not permanent. And that may very well be the case this time too.
Here's the hothardware link:
l eid=822&cid=1&page=21
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?artic
Look at the graphs at the bottom, the increase in power when the CPU is loaded is presumably due to the CPU. The EE adds 80W when going to peak power, the AMDs add almost 90W. Make of it what you will. To me it looks like the AMD is a hog. I say this because I know the EE is a hog.
I dunno why you list 130W as AMDs TDP. Are you considering that a good thing? That's an assload! My entire system doesn't take that, counting inefficiencies. (and I have an Athlon X2).
Clock-for-clock, Intel is beating AMD with Core Duo. In performance per Watt, they are KILLING them. AMD does win out on the top end, because Intel doesn't have high-end chips out yet. This will probably change when Core 2 Duo comes out.
See link:
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750
The Intel chip beats the AMD in every test that measures CPU performance. It only falls to even or a bit worse in tests which test primarily the speed of peripherals.
If you are looking at an Athlon X2 4400+ or below and you don't need 64-bit, you're making a big mistake buying an AMD. The Intel is superior. That's why I say "clock-for-clock". If you need a processor in the speed range that Intel covers with Core Duo, the Core Duo is the winner. They just top out at 2.16GHz (almost the same speed as my Athlon X2 4200+), so if you want more performance than that, you have to go to AMD (because going to P4 makes zero sense).
If what we hear about Core 2 Duo is correct, AMD won't have much left to crow about next week. Intel will have 64-bit in Core 2 Duo. AMD willl be beat on performance/Watt. They'll be beat on performance/MHz. They'll be beat on performance in multiprocessing situations. They'll be beat on performance "at any cost" (max performance). If they're lucky, AMD will keep the performance/dollar measure. That's a pretty big fall for a company that had a clear edge just a few months ago.
I don't have anything against AMD. My primary machine is an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and I love it. And it was exactly the right thing to buy at the time. But that's changed for the mainstream today, and it look like it'll change for the top end too next week.
I wish AMD the best. I hope they have something up their sleeve to top Intel again. But AM2 isn't it. I really hope they can get to 65nm (and presumably competitiveness on power) sooner than the December they state.
It wouldn't even boot my computer. And it was a 430W. I now use a 380W Antec. Works great. I previously ran a 3.0GHz P4 (Northwood, not the more power-hungry later ones) and an NVidia 6800 Ultra (one of the most power hungry video cards ever built) plus two hard drives and two optical drives off a 380W Antec. I had to add a fan on the front of my computer to keep the temps down though. But it worked great. Not sure why people buy 500W and 600W power supplies.
I wanted to get an Antec Neo HE also, as they are 85% efficient. But it appears they have problems running my motherboard (Asus A8N SLI Deluxe).
I also have a Kill-A-Watt. You find out interesting things like my computer uses no less power in S3 (suspend to ram) than it does when shut down. My previous computer uses 5W in S3 or shut down, sadly, my new one takes 10W.
I run a relatively beefy Athlon 64 X2 4200+, but I use AMD Cool n' Quiet and only one hard drive and it's difficult to get the machine to take more than 85W, unless I start up a game.
We're comparing the latest from each competitor. That's completely fair. If AMD doesn't want to look bad in comparison, they need to catch up on technology.
From what I understand, AMD will not have 65nm chips until December. That means they won't be catching up soon.
When we compare apples to apples (the P4 line to the K8 line) Intel actually uses more power, generates more heat, runs slower, and is more expensive.
Apples to Apples will change next week when Core 2 Duo comes out. And already, if you compare Core Duo to AMD's chips at the same clock speed, the Core Duo is faster and uses less power.
(comparison against Socket 940)
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750
But here's the sick part. Read hothardware's review. They include a Pentium Extreme Edition 3.73GHz in their tests. It runs neck and neck in the tests (except in gaming where it gets shellacked). But the final test is power consumption. At the wall socket at least, the AM2 CPU appears to use more power than the Pentium EE 3.73GHz.
If you can't do better on power consumption than the most power-hungry P4 out there, you should go to the back of the line.
It's clear AMD is behind Intel at the moment. I really hope they catch up and pass them. We've benefited from the competition and I don't want to see it end.
"the entertainment, as hinted in the article, will get cold feet an renege on what turns out to be a gentleman's agreement only, and goes ahead with the ICT anyway."
Sony has already said they won't use it, and they have plenty of reason to follow up on that, given that they will be selling HDMI-less players.
If some or most movies play just fine over component, but some don't, the publisher of those that don't will take it in the butt in the marketplace. People just won't buy their discs, because they suspect they won't be able to play them.
So I figured that the agreement will hold for a while at least.
Then the EULA that uses isn't restricting either. It's giving permissions. When they snuck in language that said you couldn't use Visual Studio to make a spreadsheet (i.e. compete with Excel), they weren't restricting, they were giving you permissions. You should feel lucky to be allowed to use Visual Studio at all.
Thanks for realigning my thinking. Now I'm much more appreciative of SCO. I mean, they didn't have to let me use Linux at all, now they want to enable me to do it, for a small fee.
The GPL restricts. That's the whole point of a license. If you didn't want to restrict, you'd put it in the public domain. Then you truly could do whatever you want with it.
Someone GPLs something instead of giving it away because they want to maintain some forms of control over it. It is there to restrict. Some may say the restrictions are good things, that's not for me to judge.
There's plenty more.
There's no doubt in my mind X is many times slower than it needs to be. Most of it is in the kernel though, not the call site.
The problem is that I think that certain people in the US and other places would like to reserve these certain byproducts as evidence of intent to make nuclear weapons.
It's like guns. In the US, guns are legal, so having guns and just transporting them cannot really be punished. However, this hinders catching people who have an intent to use the guns to do harm ("bad things"). Because just having the gun isn't an indication of anything.
Now imagine if guns were criminalized. In theory, anyone who had a gun could pretty much be automatically assumed to intend to do harm with it. Because those who didn't have such intent wouldn't go out of the way to break the law in having them.
I think these people think that keeping a lid on breeder reactors means that you can assume that anyone who builds one and has the enriched results of one is going to make a bomb with it. That has both an effect of reducing the amount of highly enriched fuel available and also helps you find the potential wrongdoers.
Now, I'm not saying this is actually practical (nor the guns example), but I think that is how the people involved in the regulations think it can be done. I would presume they would re-enrich the used fuel in fewer, more secure locations. And those locations would presumably never highly enrich it so that it could be used for bomb.
I guess I just didn't see that side. In the software market space I see how the GPL does encourage competition in those ways.
Commercial software licenses typically disallow a substantial range of actions which would otherwise be permitted by law (copyright and otherwise).
And so does the GPL. That's what a license is for. Otherwise it would be public domain.