Maybe Moore's Law should include the size of the cooling system (0.03K) and the magnet (biggest in the world) that you'll need inside your computer to create the state.
Macbook pros have pretty poor gaming performance too. They put too little memory on the graphics card, unless you pay insane amounts more, and the temperature sky rockets when there is any decent load (even with fan on full using hacks I get to 80 degrees C).
I quite like my MBP 3rd gen but I am not oblivious to its faults. It is made cheap in China, with some short cuts on building. OSX is the most woefully slow system ever built. Though it is nice to use, I'd run linux all the time if I could get a nicer double and triple click option. OSX wastes a lot of the power you get, is not made to be configurable easily beyond the basic stuff (windows is even more adaptable), but it still has some nice points, and is pretty like the MBP. PC with linux can match them though, and is probably my next computer.
It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.
Agree, but this is a science article. It is obviously going to be read by quite a few technically minded people. So it doesn't hurt to give a clear value as well as a clarifier for the masses.
I'd have to say that shows pretty limited thinking.
If I vote for Labor before Liberal, and Rudd is the leader of the Labor party who will be Prime Minister if Labor wins the needed quota of seats, then I have obviously voted for Rudd even though my official vote is for my local candidate. I thought most people realised this before they voted in an election.
Unfortunately Australia went from one control freak to another at the last election. This one actually worried me a little more even though I voted for him. John Howard was so concerned with control and self image that it ended up being a pretty lame government. Most complaints about him were for underhanded politics, dirty election tactics, racism and neglect. He never looked far enough beyond himselfthe impact on him to do much damage.
Whereas Kevin Rudd has the potential to actively destroy things by being idealistic. He's got that Mao streak in him, where he believes so strongly in his ideals that he can justify taking liberty for them. And he does it in such a no fuss, detached, almost autistic way. As I said I voted for him to remove Johnny, but he has always scared me a lot more.
Apple has always been just as evil as microsoft if not more evil. Choose the system based on what you want to use not how friendly the company is.
And their great record with problems as most mac users know is that they don't acknowledge they are there. Currently with the new leopard upgrade my computer has massive network problems, no comments from apple. A million third party sources on the net have figured out what the problems are, the discussion boards at apple are full of stuff on it. But apple stays silent. Like they did when people found linux no longer worked with the new macbooks. Think apple would communicate with the open source community and make things easier for their users? No way. They added a few new updates to fix the things people had found got around the problem. Apple and Microsoft are no ones friends. And neither deserve fan boys. Enjoy their systems and products, but expect nothing more, they are companies that are run at high stakes, and care about the bottom line only.
What are your options for operating systems these days. I love Ubuntu, WinXP isn't bad, vista kills a good machine, OSX 10.4 runs too slow on an intel machine. Then you have this. Fast, efficient, clean looking, best loading times I have seen on programs (which may be something to do with full 64-bit and proper scheduling for multicore even when programs arent written for it).
Bag apple all you like, I enjoy doing it too, but leopard is the one bit of common sense in the computer industry these days, hopefully KDE 4 follows suit and the under the hood and usability takes preference over excessive eye candy and effects.
Though they also would be intelligent enough to assume other lifeforms who could take them over had developed a reasonably good understanding of intelligent lifeforms. I think to get to this sort of stage a lot of the social breakthroughs we have made would be just as important as the scientific ones. Could you imagine a race being a 1000 years more advanced than us an still having no understanding of it's psychology or democracy or just general lifeform interactions. If they became like America has been under bush and thought their way was the only way, it would last for a bit. But arrogant groups destroy themselves.
The ones who had the ability to destroy us would be as interested that life existed elsewhere as we are. Look at the value humans place on Apes. The higher up the social chain the more it feels like us and the more it feels wrong to attack it in cold blood. The more we want to somehow communicate with them and understand them. You don't become an advanced lifeform accidently and as earth has shown, all the most advanced lifeforms are animals that work in teams or communities. You could almost say social interaction and teamwork are what creates an advanced species. Could you imagine any lifeform that has learnt these things and knows they are superior to us attacking us without being provoked? I think as long as they don't have religions that tell them we don't exist, then we would be safe...
Apple is just better at their media image. With the macbook pro you got a lucky break because it was obvious and not common. Look at all the other macbook pro problems and how apple treated them. At least Dell or IBM or a PC company would comment. Apple sues sites that publish problems because they give bad publicity. How do you think they keep this unrealistic image?
We shouldn't kid ourselves here, Apple is just the lesser of two evils. The IPhone only runs on their chosen network, the ipod ripped off creative's technology and has been marketed so well it's almost wiped the superior and original product out, their support for users doing anything but word processing and basic things sucks, OSX is bulky and slow... in a way apple is the idiot's PC, hopefully Leopard's release changes this but after their ability to address issues with the Macbook Pro I wouldn't be confident.
Not saying I like windows either, it feels terrible. Linux is in a small slump at the moment in terms of Macbook support, but when it gets nvidia drivers to work with whatever the hell Apple did to their card so it wouldn't be compatible with other environments (what a surprise), then I will only use OSX as a backup. My old p4 desktop runs faster in linux than my core 2 duo macbook pro runs in OSX. The superpi scores on the macbook pro are under a quarter of those on the P4, and the graphics benchmark on an Nvidia 8600m compared to the ATI 9200 in my desktop probably couldn't even be displayed in the same program. But still apple's OSX runs around the same speed. Linux on my macbook pro on the other hand, makes it feel like the beast it is.
Not saying OSX and Apple are a bad choice for some things. They just consider their image more than their users.
It still clearly shows how much religion in most forms differs from logic and science. Without people's blind will to believe or striving to have to prove something they were told to believe is true, it would make no sense at all. You have truth which is true, you have truth which becomes metaphoric when it no longer makes enough sense to argue. The thing that seems to worry a lot of people these days is why do we start at the wrong conclusion in the first place? Why start with something that we have no clue what it means and if it is true or metaphorically true and try to use it to understand the world and existance. Why give something we have no clues about preference in our decisions over the things we learn from life and the world. There isn't any other area in life where this sort of logic stands any chance of not being called stupidity. When the bible agrees with the world people make a big deal and say, oh its right, it must be a great book of truth. Where it doesn't they say it must be metaphoric. It is completely pointless. The thing we are learning from when we do this is life not the bible. The bible is just something like our favourite album where we all want it to be the great book of history and it's writers to be the great men. And we want to believe this favourite band of ours invented everything. They invented the church, and don't have claim to much more.
I think it's funny how much of this stuff the US is responsible for. Oil and global warming, destroying the amazon, helping spark wars in israel, starting wars in afganistan and iraq, encouraging Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers, corrupting international agendas including undermining the integrity of the UN for political gain, undermining scientific integrity for political gain, undermining the integrity of any country who disagrees with them, being overrun by religious lunatics, the list goes on. All I can say is I send my deepest condolences and am glad I don't live there. Though here in Australia we just follow you so we aren't much better.
The whole idea of patent and copyright trolling should be unconstitutional. I'm guessing the laws were put there so rival companies wouldn't steal ideas. And copyright was put there to stop cinemas and stuff displaying contents without rewarding the creator. Not to allow large business to control the activities of the general public.
In a way it is bad for them. And it may hurt their profits, though not as much as they think because of the extra publicity and the people who would never have touched their record in a store that now hear it. But it has greatly improved the public's interest in music of all kinds and made more bands and genres accessible. In a way it has created a great age for music where the commercialisation that was building up over the last 20 years may finally start fading away again. And I think that's why no matter how you try to justify shutting it down by law, the reality is that it is good for music. Which leaves the question of what the law in this case aims to achieve. Does it want a cultured artistic country with a variety of music. Or a money hungry monopoly, which looks only at what sells, how to screw artists and excuses to ramp up the prices. It is obvious the music industry wants the second because they can profit from it. But the law shouldn't be about what those with more money want. Should it? God bless America!
In this sense businesses are still enforced to pay for software and everything also, because they are using it toward making money. I'm sure when they put the law there they didn't want it to be a means for large companies to make mass attacks on the general public. More a means for companies to protect their product from competitors. I might be wrong though...the current use of it just doesn't seem in the spirit of things.
Nah, fascists believed in progress. They would probably be far more productive if they were fascists. Would get rid of patent law, and unproductive business (is that most of it these days).
The people we are talking about don't have the balls and aren't ruthless enough to be fascists. They're just little men who want control. Far less danger of world domination, but far more annoying and long term because they never really take control. And they never become an obvious enemy to fight against. Bit like a two year old who wants something but knows they aren't big enough to get it.
I know it is scary if Iran can get space technology. But what gives us the right to keep them in the stone age. It's the 21st century and I'm all for everyone having space programs because it means space travel will advance quicker than with an underfunded NASA leading it, or the soviets. Also some advance in technology might go hand in hand with an advance in education. Which is always scary for fundamentalism.
In terms of nukes America's threat as a nuclear nation encourages other countries to build them. There is no other nation in the world that boasts as much about having the bomb, while they spread the fear of what could happen if anyone else used them. If you look at the situation more carefully America has declared Iran an enemy. It is obvious Iran can't win. But they may feel if they had nukes they can create a stalemate. Muslim countries wish to spread of course, I'm not denying that. But they have no intention of taking over America, they may want Israel back, which is almost justified because some arrogant pricks just took their land and said this will make a nice spot for the Jews. But they won't attack you for anything but what you support and do outside America. They are also not likely to do something as self destructive as launch a nuke on America or one of their allies, because they know the consequences. It is poor tactics. Their biggest weapon is the threat of launching them because it keeps America from doing an Iraq to them.
I think Microsoft just has trouble accepting that in the long term they may be beaten by something that is free. And it has got them pretty scared. Before now they could claim supremacy to the general public because we were used to their system, not others. But with MAC users on the increase and many people using and becoming more aware of open source software like firefox, and many software manufacturers making linux versions, they are in a bit of trouble. Their biggest problem is that if linux gets even equivalent appeal to the average user, they are screwed. You can't sell an operating system for hundreds of dollars that has a free alternative. So if they can find a way to wipe out the free alternative, or force it to be not free to be usable, they may win. It's dirty business, but it's survival. Because they know in the long term there is not a lot they can do to win the operating system war. In the last year or so they have been asking the customer to serve them, and serving their own needs rather than the customer's. They can do a lot of talk to try to convince people otherwise, but if they polled users and asked what they wanted or didn't want, I'm sure it wouldn't be what they are delivering.
But in a sense what I was getting at is people are always going to push the boundaries no matter how safe the design is. If the reactor was under normal conditions with normal safety regulations followed properly, it wouldn't have happened. I agree the design was somewhat inferior to todays though.
I wasn't arguing scripture, just pointing out that in my view the structure of the church sets up an environment where people are inclined to do something very different to what scripture should inspire them to do. I think we have quite a similar view of what it says. I'm more concerned with how it is used. To be anti-sin is very different to being pro good. In a way it is negative utilitarianism, which is a wonderfully self defeating way of turning the world into nothing so there is no bad stuff. Every person who walks into the church is their own person, with their own personality and their own strengths. The question is what is most important to the church, that they realise the gifts they are given and make the most of them, or that they don't sin and don't learn in the process. The only thing to be gained from being anti-sin is control. It gives a way to keep people in check and keep them coming back. As I already said, if the church didn't play on the emotions of its members and said we believe in you, be all you can be, add something to the world, but do it honestly.. they would be a far more powerful and useful unit than drones trying ot protect an ideology by saying what they are taught to say to defend it.
And just as interesting if the 2006 version of unix still had the date and time right when the universe collapsed. Can just imagine die hards in the year 250,000,000,000 still using the old unix system, to control their lightspeed travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Australian's have known about the importance of Vb for years.
Maybe Moore's Law should include the size of the cooling system (0.03K) and the magnet (biggest in the world) that you'll need inside your computer to create the state.
Macbook pros have pretty poor gaming performance too. They put too little memory on the graphics card, unless you pay insane amounts more, and the temperature sky rockets when there is any decent load (even with fan on full using hacks I get to 80 degrees C).
I quite like my MBP 3rd gen but I am not oblivious to its faults. It is made cheap in China, with some short cuts on building. OSX is the most woefully slow system ever built. Though it is nice to use, I'd run linux all the time if I could get a nicer double and triple click option. OSX wastes a lot of the power you get, is not made to be configurable easily beyond the basic stuff (windows is even more adaptable), but it still has some nice points, and is pretty like the MBP. PC with linux can match them though, and is probably my next computer.
It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.
Agree, but this is a science article. It is obviously going to be read by quite a few technically minded people. So it doesn't hurt to give a clear value as well as a clarifier for the masses.
I'd have to say that shows pretty limited thinking.
If I vote for Labor before Liberal, and Rudd is the leader of the Labor party who will be Prime Minister if Labor wins the needed quota of seats, then I have obviously voted for Rudd even though my official vote is for my local candidate. I thought most people realised this before they voted in an election.
Unfortunately Australia went from one control freak to another at the last election. This one actually worried me a little more even though I voted for him. John Howard was so concerned with control and self image that it ended up being a pretty lame government. Most complaints about him were for underhanded politics, dirty election tactics, racism and neglect. He never looked far enough beyond himselfthe impact on him to do much damage.
Whereas Kevin Rudd has the potential to actively destroy things by being idealistic. He's got that Mao streak in him, where he believes so strongly in his ideals that he can justify taking liberty for them. And he does it in such a no fuss, detached, almost autistic way. As I said I voted for him to remove Johnny, but he has always scared me a lot more.
dedicated to #2 -- butt sex!
Well when it comes to butt sex it does have the important things right.
"knows how to get itself up if it's in trouble."
Apple has always been just as evil as microsoft if not more evil. Choose the system based on what you want to use not how friendly the company is.
And their great record with problems as most mac users know is that they don't acknowledge they are there. Currently with the new leopard upgrade my computer has massive network problems, no comments from apple. A million third party sources on the net have figured out what the problems are, the discussion boards at apple are full of stuff on it. But apple stays silent. Like they did when people found linux no longer worked with the new macbooks. Think apple would communicate with the open source community and make things easier for their users? No way. They added a few new updates to fix the things people had found got around the problem. Apple and Microsoft are no ones friends. And neither deserve fan boys. Enjoy their systems and products, but expect nothing more, they are companies that are run at high stakes, and care about the bottom line only.
What are your options for operating systems these days. I love Ubuntu, WinXP isn't bad, vista kills a good machine, OSX 10.4 runs too slow on an intel machine. Then you have this. Fast, efficient, clean looking, best loading times I have seen on programs (which may be something to do with full 64-bit and proper scheduling for multicore even when programs arent written for it). Bag apple all you like, I enjoy doing it too, but leopard is the one bit of common sense in the computer industry these days, hopefully KDE 4 follows suit and the under the hood and usability takes preference over excessive eye candy and effects.
ALIVE!!!!!
Though they also would be intelligent enough to assume other lifeforms who could take them over had developed a reasonably good understanding of intelligent lifeforms. I think to get to this sort of stage a lot of the social breakthroughs we have made would be just as important as the scientific ones. Could you imagine a race being a 1000 years more advanced than us an still having no understanding of it's psychology or democracy or just general lifeform interactions. If they became like America has been under bush and thought their way was the only way, it would last for a bit. But arrogant groups destroy themselves.
The ones who had the ability to destroy us would be as interested that life existed elsewhere as we are. Look at the value humans place on Apes. The higher up the social chain the more it feels like us and the more it feels wrong to attack it in cold blood. The more we want to somehow communicate with them and understand them. You don't become an advanced lifeform accidently and as earth has shown, all the most advanced lifeforms are animals that work in teams or communities. You could almost say social interaction and teamwork are what creates an advanced species. Could you imagine any lifeform that has learnt these things and knows they are superior to us attacking us without being provoked? I think as long as they don't have religions that tell them we don't exist, then we would be safe...
Apple is just better at their media image. With the macbook pro you got a lucky break because it was obvious and not common. Look at all the other macbook pro problems and how apple treated them. At least Dell or IBM or a PC company would comment. Apple sues sites that publish problems because they give bad publicity. How do you think they keep this unrealistic image?
We shouldn't kid ourselves here, Apple is just the lesser of two evils. The IPhone only runs on their chosen network, the ipod ripped off creative's technology and has been marketed so well it's almost wiped the superior and original product out, their support for users doing anything but word processing and basic things sucks, OSX is bulky and slow... in a way apple is the idiot's PC, hopefully Leopard's release changes this but after their ability to address issues with the Macbook Pro I wouldn't be confident.
Not saying I like windows either, it feels terrible. Linux is in a small slump at the moment in terms of Macbook support, but when it gets nvidia drivers to work with whatever the hell Apple did to their card so it wouldn't be compatible with other environments (what a surprise), then I will only use OSX as a backup. My old p4 desktop runs faster in linux than my core 2 duo macbook pro runs in OSX. The superpi scores on the macbook pro are under a quarter of those on the P4, and the graphics benchmark on an Nvidia 8600m compared to the ATI 9200 in my desktop probably couldn't even be displayed in the same program. But still apple's OSX runs around the same speed. Linux on my macbook pro on the other hand, makes it feel like the beast it is.
Not saying OSX and Apple are a bad choice for some things. They just consider their image more than their users.
It still clearly shows how much religion in most forms differs from logic and science. Without people's blind will to believe or striving to have to prove something they were told to believe is true, it would make no sense at all. You have truth which is true, you have truth which becomes metaphoric when it no longer makes enough sense to argue. The thing that seems to worry a lot of people these days is why do we start at the wrong conclusion in the first place? Why start with something that we have no clue what it means and if it is true or metaphorically true and try to use it to understand the world and existance. Why give something we have no clues about preference in our decisions over the things we learn from life and the world. There isn't any other area in life where this sort of logic stands any chance of not being called stupidity. When the bible agrees with the world people make a big deal and say, oh its right, it must be a great book of truth. Where it doesn't they say it must be metaphoric. It is completely pointless. The thing we are learning from when we do this is life not the bible. The bible is just something like our favourite album where we all want it to be the great book of history and it's writers to be the great men. And we want to believe this favourite band of ours invented everything. They invented the church, and don't have claim to much more.
I think it's funny how much of this stuff the US is responsible for. Oil and global warming, destroying the amazon, helping spark wars in israel, starting wars in afganistan and iraq, encouraging Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers, corrupting international agendas including undermining the integrity of the UN for political gain, undermining scientific integrity for political gain, undermining the integrity of any country who disagrees with them, being overrun by religious lunatics, the list goes on. All I can say is I send my deepest condolences and am glad I don't live there. Though here in Australia we just follow you so we aren't much better.
The whole idea of patent and copyright trolling should be unconstitutional. I'm guessing the laws were put there so rival companies wouldn't steal ideas. And copyright was put there to stop cinemas and stuff displaying contents without rewarding the creator. Not to allow large business to control the activities of the general public.
In a way it is bad for them. And it may hurt their profits, though not as much as they think because of the extra publicity and the people who would never have touched their record in a store that now hear it. But it has greatly improved the public's interest in music of all kinds and made more bands and genres accessible. In a way it has created a great age for music where the commercialisation that was building up over the last 20 years may finally start fading away again. And I think that's why no matter how you try to justify shutting it down by law, the reality is that it is good for music. Which leaves the question of what the law in this case aims to achieve. Does it want a cultured artistic country with a variety of music. Or a money hungry monopoly, which looks only at what sells, how to screw artists and excuses to ramp up the prices. It is obvious the music industry wants the second because they can profit from it. But the law shouldn't be about what those with more money want. Should it? God bless America!
In this sense businesses are still enforced to pay for software and everything also, because they are using it toward making money. I'm sure when they put the law there they didn't want it to be a means for large companies to make mass attacks on the general public. More a means for companies to protect their product from competitors. I might be wrong though...the current use of it just doesn't seem in the spirit of things.
Nah, fascists believed in progress. They would probably be far more productive if they were fascists. Would get rid of patent law, and unproductive business (is that most of it these days).
The people we are talking about don't have the balls and aren't ruthless enough to be fascists. They're just little men who want control. Far less danger of world domination, but far more annoying and long term because they never really take control. And they never become an obvious enemy to fight against. Bit like a two year old who wants something but knows they aren't big enough to get it.
If you don't teach her to start the car you should be safe...
I know it is scary if Iran can get space technology. But what gives us the right to keep them in the stone age. It's the 21st century and I'm all for everyone having space programs because it means space travel will advance quicker than with an underfunded NASA leading it, or the soviets. Also some advance in technology might go hand in hand with an advance in education. Which is always scary for fundamentalism.
In terms of nukes America's threat as a nuclear nation encourages other countries to build them. There is no other nation in the world that boasts as much about having the bomb, while they spread the fear of what could happen if anyone else used them. If you look at the situation more carefully America has declared Iran an enemy. It is obvious Iran can't win. But they may feel if they had nukes they can create a stalemate. Muslim countries wish to spread of course, I'm not denying that. But they have no intention of taking over America, they may want Israel back, which is almost justified because some arrogant pricks just took their land and said this will make a nice spot for the Jews. But they won't attack you for anything but what you support and do outside America. They are also not likely to do something as self destructive as launch a nuke on America or one of their allies, because they know the consequences. It is poor tactics. Their biggest weapon is the threat of launching them because it keeps America from doing an Iraq to them.
I think Microsoft just has trouble accepting that in the long term they may be beaten by something that is free. And it has got them pretty scared. Before now they could claim supremacy to the general public because we were used to their system, not others. But with MAC users on the increase and many people using and becoming more aware of open source software like firefox, and many software manufacturers making linux versions, they are in a bit of trouble. Their biggest problem is that if linux gets even equivalent appeal to the average user, they are screwed. You can't sell an operating system for hundreds of dollars that has a free alternative. So if they can find a way to wipe out the free alternative, or force it to be not free to be usable, they may win. It's dirty business, but it's survival. Because they know in the long term there is not a lot they can do to win the operating system war. In the last year or so they have been asking the customer to serve them, and serving their own needs rather than the customer's. They can do a lot of talk to try to convince people otherwise, but if they polled users and asked what they wanted or didn't want, I'm sure it wouldn't be what they are delivering.
All comments retracted, I'll post informed next time, no point arguing it :).
Who'd want a 25 million year old princess? She'd be more than a little wrinkly.
Comment retracted :)
But in a sense what I was getting at is people are always going to push the boundaries no matter how safe the design is. If the reactor was under normal conditions with normal safety regulations followed properly, it wouldn't have happened. I agree the design was somewhat inferior to todays though.
I wasn't arguing scripture, just pointing out that in my view the structure of the church sets up an environment where people are inclined to do something very different to what scripture should inspire them to do. I think we have quite a similar view of what it says. I'm more concerned with how it is used. To be anti-sin is very different to being pro good. In a way it is negative utilitarianism, which is a wonderfully self defeating way of turning the world into nothing so there is no bad stuff. Every person who walks into the church is their own person, with their own personality and their own strengths. The question is what is most important to the church, that they realise the gifts they are given and make the most of them, or that they don't sin and don't learn in the process. The only thing to be gained from being anti-sin is control. It gives a way to keep people in check and keep them coming back. As I already said, if the church didn't play on the emotions of its members and said we believe in you, be all you can be, add something to the world, but do it honestly.. they would be a far more powerful and useful unit than drones trying ot protect an ideology by saying what they are taught to say to defend it.
And just as interesting if the 2006 version of unix still had the date and time right when the universe collapsed. Can just imagine die hards in the year 250,000,000,000 still using the old unix system, to control their lightspeed travel.