Also, I fail to see how you can make your claim that running distributed computing clients is a task "the G4 does better and faster than any other processor"??
What are you benchmarking against? It's pretty much cold, hard fact that the latest P4 processors outperform anything in the G4 series. That's why Apple was considering the idea of possibly moving towards an Intel-based Mac someday. They have a CPU that won't scale as far, and doesn't perform as well as what Intel has.
It strikes me as yet another attempt to drum up some more support for Apple's platform -- but it's a pretty pathetic one. "Come on, join the Mac revolution! You too can perform stupid stunts like tossing old Windows-based PCs and look at porn!"
Or, it could be just a bunch of people with shared interests getting together in person. You know, like friends do.
Maybe you don't know.
Wake me up when a group of Mac users accomplishes something truly significant and new/interesting with their machines. Right now, they still seem to mostly be playing "catch up" with the PC world. (EG. The distributed computing projects like SETI@home and United Devices' search for cures for cancer are milestones in personal computing. But where was Apple at the forefront of that revolution? Nowhere....)
Score: -1 (Redundant)
Were ANY corporations at the forefront of those "revolutions?" I used to run SETI on my Mac years ago. Got bored with it.
BTW, running some of the distributed computing clients (SETI, et al) is one of the things the G4 does better and faster than any other processor.
...made by the poster-child for locking people into overpriced hardware?
What overpriced hardware? Where?
Overpriced compared to what, exactly? Some beige box held together with duct tape? Probably so. Compared to equitable hardware (INCLUDING quality of internal parts and after-purchase support) probably not.
Lookee here: It's another story containing flamebait:
It's certainly more powerful than anything on the desktop now, but by the time it's released a year from now, it looks to be middle-of-the-pack (which could still be a step up for Apple...)
Ya know, if you can't tell the difference between chip architectures by now, there's no point in trying to explain.
IMO those things would be better served by smaller, cpus with more computational power per unit of actual power.
It's (typically) not the CPU creating the excess heat; It's the transmitter itself. Handheld cel phone antennae are poorly tuned and tend to reflect power back into the transmitter causing it to heat up.
(Why not properly tune the antenna? The human body de-tunes the phone's antenna/ground plane system differently for different users.)
What if your private rocket has a malfunction and goes slamming into a major city, killing thousands?
Look at a map. There's not a major city within 100 miles of Fort Stockton, Texas.
Cape Canaveral is much closer to major metro areas than Fort Stockton ever will be.
Re:If you liked Princess Mononoke...
on
Review: Spirited Away
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Caveat: I would compare Nausicaa the movie to Nausicaa the anime as Dune, the abridged Lynch movie, to Dune, the series of books written by Frank Herbert.
Except that in this case Nausicaa the Movie was written, directed, and mostly drawn by Miyazaki, and Nausicaa the manga (not anime) was written and drawn by Miyazaki. It doesn't suffer from the ill effects of a director's egotistic attempts to put his own spin on the story.
Wrong. No matter the size of the driver, it will still produce pressure waves all the way down to zero frequency. The diameter of the driver simply defines the "cutoff" frequency (which is a bit of a misnomer because it incorrectly implies that there is no response below a certain frequency). In reality, with a conventional cone driver there is a first-order dropoff in output response below the cutoff, that is the rolloff is about 10dB/decade, and the cutoff itself is usually defined by the half-power (-3dB) point.
Let's look at the physical motion of the driver cone: On the positive slope of a sine wave the cone is pushed out away from the magnet by the voice coil. That motion creates a high-pressure area in front of the cone. Simultaneously, a low-pressure area is created behind the cone. At wavelengths longer than the cone diameter an audible (or measurable) sound wave cannot be created due to the pressure equalizing between the front and rear of the cone.
So, if the cutoff for a given driver is 300Hz, that means that at 300Hz the driver's output is 3dB down from its plateau, at 30Hz, it's 13dB down, and at 3Hz it's 23dB down. In almost any subwoofer you make/buy, the driver is operating entirely in its cutoff region.
First time I've ever heard it described in "decades." In the business of professional audio 'octaves' are the units typically used.
Trust me, the dropoff is much more rapid than you've described. More like 12dB/octave or more.
I was gonna quote more, but as read back over it I realized that it's more marketingspeak than actual scientific theory. You don't sell directional audio cables, do you?
Now, it is possible to create a usable subwoofer without an enclosure. You still have to compensate for the rolloff response of the driver operating below its cutoff, but instead of tuning pressure waves, you perform the tuning electronically so that the frequency response of the driver's input signal is the opposite of the driver's response. The reason why you hardly ever see this approach used is because the power requirements are much greater.
No, it is not possible to creat a useable subwoofer without at least the presence of a baffle.
The reason you never see your approach (trying to alter physics with electronics) is that:
The driver needs some kind of back-loading to keep the voice coil from being pushed out of the gap.
Any energy you force into the driver that it can't turn into acoustical energy gets turned into heat.
One thing everyone seems to be missing in this discussion is that driver specifications are based on a driver mounted in a large baffle and measured in an anechoic chamber.
But anyway, I'll indulge you quickly; I'll only post a couple links since apparently all I have to prove is that there is one driver that will work (there are many, many free-space drivers that go well below 300 Hz by the way):
Every link you posted discusses drivers mounted in enclosures, where the driver/enclosure combination response measurements are stated. There are no response measurements of any drivers only, because they'd be meaningless. Drivers without enclosures (or at least a baffle of some kind) cannot reproduce wavelengths longer than the diameter of the driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Try something that's not a troll.
What can I say about A. Cowards that won't amount to flamebait or a troll?
Maybe you don't know.
Score: -1 (Redundant)Were ANY corporations at the forefront of those "revolutions?" I used to run SETI on my Mac years ago. Got bored with it.
BTW, running some of the distributed computing clients (SETI, et al) is one of the things the G4 does better and faster than any other processor.
Overpriced compared to what, exactly? Some beige box held together with duct tape? Probably so. Compared to equitable hardware (INCLUDING quality of internal parts and after-purchase support) probably not.
Score: -1 (Redundant)
I wouldn't be suprised if FedEx has done the same thing.
Looks like the drugs must have worn off.
Make sense now?
- Itanium (Nope. Proprietary.)
- Windows (Nope. Proprietary.)
- AMD (Nope. Proprietary.)
- Sun (Nope. Proprietary.)
- nVidia (Nope. Proprietary.)
- Slashdot (Nope. Proprietary.)
- Java (Nope. Proprietary.)
- Diablo II (Nope. Proprietary.)
- BeOS (Nope. Proprietary.)
- ...
Damn, I think we're stuck.(Hint: Look up the word.)
(Why not properly tune the antenna? The human body de-tunes the phone's antenna/ground plane system differently for different users.)
XServe
To me, it's what's inside that matters, not what they choose to call it.
Sorry you were so late to the OSX game to begin with.
I do now. Sorry, folks.
Trust me, the dropoff is much more rapid than you've described. More like 12dB/octave or more.
I was gonna quote more, but as read back over it I realized that it's more marketingspeak than actual scientific theory. You don't sell directional audio cables, do you?
No, it is not possible to creat a useable subwoofer without at least the presence of a baffle.The reason you never see your approach (trying to alter physics with electronics) is that:
One thing everyone seems to be missing in this discussion is that driver specifications are based on a driver mounted in a large baffle and measured in an anechoic chamber.
Let these folks waste their money on the "experts" at the local auto sound shop.
Prove me wrong. Try linking to an actually product.