Entschuldung, aber ich glaube dass "Dein" nicht gross geschrieben werden sÃllte, ausserdem dass es als erste Wort einer Satz ist.:) Aber so hast du so vielen recht... Mit fast jedem Amerikaner kann man solche Dinge sagen: "Mein Englisch ist besser als deine."
Es sind nur die Einige (von dem bin ich eine), die sagen kÃnnen: "so, kÃnnen wir aber nicht kennen, denn ich spreche Deutsch bei C1... und wie gut sprichst du English?":)
Try traveling as an American. People hate me everywhere I go, as if I personally authorized every terrible decision my country's leaders have made.
They make it out as if I'm the one making close-minded, stereotypical decisions. I have travelled as an American. However, unlike the less globally-minded Americans, I have learned quite a bit about foreign languages.
I'll give you a story from my god-mother. She was in France and standing in line at a Bank to exchange money. The man in front of her was an irate American upset that the teller only spoke French. He was yelling, he was upset, and the Frenchman was just standing there taking the abuse, oblivious to what the man was yelling about. My god-mother worried that her four years of High School French may not be sufficient to interact with the teller, was getting nervous. When the man finally gave up and left, she went up to the teller and said, "Pardon moi, mas je ne-" and was cut off by the teller telling here, "I speak English."
If you want to know why foreigners are always upset at Americans it's because most Americans seem to expect all foreigners to speak English. This really isn't a belief that they isolate to American. Their feeling is that if you want to interact with Americans, then you must learn English. The notion is pretty silly actually, but most Americans still hold on to it.
I've been involved with conversations with non-Americans, and since I'm not the arrogant American thinking "everything is best in America", and I'm actually very very critical of America, they respect the humility, understand that the control of my country is a bit more than out of my hands, and that most of all. I'm not like the stereotypical Americans that refuse to learn any foreign language, refuse to believe any other country might have systems that work better than America's, etc.
I'll tell you straight forward, that it's not you as an American they hate. It's that you represent the arrogant bastard American that they've met their whole life.
Looking at that, it looks like my information is outdated. ARM is about 75% of all of the embedded processors.
It does make sense the ARM has a lot, and I mean a lot to offer. Thumbcode and all sorts of other awesome things.:) My data was pretty old, likely before ARM's advantages were widely available. However, PowerPC still probably has some crazy percentage over x86 though.
Either way, x86 is by far one of the smallest markets for CPUs being limited almost exclusively to desktops and laptops.
A number of factual errors are readily apparent in your post. The 68K is a CISC processor, and not a "genetic" predecessor to the PowerPC. The only link they have is that the 68K was using in Macs before they switched to the PowerPC. The PowerPC line is actually descendent from the POWER designs done by IBM before IBM, Apple, and Motorola came together to make the PowerPC line. In the development of the PowerPC line a few instructions were removed from the POWER instruction set, and a full 32-bit/64-bit ISA was designed... right from the start. (Not 64-bit extensions of a 32-bit extension of a 16-bit chip which was an alternative to a primarily 8-bit version previous to it.)
Motorola still uses PowerPCs... you may not really be aware of it because no one focuses that much upon what is running what, except on Desktops and Laptops. If the speed of the processor is not something that can be made into a selling point, then there is no reason for advertising to talk about what it is. It's pretty much that simple. However, Motorola is still very active with PowerPC designs. The G4 was not implemented specifically for Apple, it was designed as an Embedded processor. Which is why Apple's G4 PowerBooks were getting 5 hours of life when equivalent PC Laptops were getting 2-3-ish.
Four chip families? I'm wondering where you get this. The x86/x64 line is obvious, as is PowerPC (and other POWER derivatives), ARM, 68K, Z80, Sparc, MIPS... that's just off the top of my head. It's true though that the Itanium and DEC Alpha have both been retired (oddly against what would seem common sense as both of them were/are superior to many other architecture lineages). However, Microsoft Server 2008 still supports the Itanium.
As well, NT4 did run and was offered on both PowerPC and Alpha. It never ran on a 68K as far as I'm aware. They did however also support MIPS, at least on the blackboard.
Everyone focuses on new technologies making crappy designs better... spend enough time and you can make Bubblesort work much faster than Quicksort for the vast majority of cases that it will meet up with. However, Quicksort still remains quite a bit better. I'd love to see us focus on new technologies to make new designs work better... but then I'm a bit of an idealist.
I admit that rereading the subject line is a bit of an "oh.... crap:("
Although, again... PowerPC is the single largest embedded chip.
I already said that there were x86 embedded chips, but when you compare their performance against available RISC chips their performance sucks.
All three major consoles are PowerPC now. The Playstation 3 uses the Cell processor, which operates with a PowerPC chip as the general-purpose CPU, and then the specialized cells are different, but similar to PowerPC architectures. The XBox 360 is three dual core PowerPC chips with some form of altered Altivec. The Wii, much like the GameCube it's substantially based upon depends upon a pretty much stock PowerPC chip.
The reason Apple was forced into adopting the x86 chipset is because they could get neither IBM nor Motorola to produce chips in the same way that the x86 chips are targeted. The x86 chip has long been the de facto standard of the desktop and non-big-iron servers, and as such has almost all of its significant development in this area has been spent targetting it, however the PowerPC chip has largely targeted different markets, and so Apple just could get the type of CPUs from either of the major PowerPC chip makers that they wanted. Naturally, they then went to a company that could provide them with the type of chips that they wanted.
As for "sheer numbers" IBM is the single largest chip manufacturer in the world... and they don't make x86 chips.
Yes, closed-technology, what with their advancement of PCI, USB, Firewire, etc.
The cult of the single-button mouse.
Simplicity by design. If you might only have one mouse-button then you can get everything done with only one mouse button. Seriously, who here on Slashdot has not had to explain to someone the difference between RIGHT click, and LEFT click. The fact that use use the multiple button in games and such is entirely beside the point. I have an 8 button mouse that I use with my Mac anymore, and it works fine.
Reseller programs from hell.
Ok, you have stuff here. Apple has always been strict about resellers and such. In some ways it has always worked out for them, because the support has been better. Now they're selling them at Best Buy *looks around* I don't think the red-tape for resellers is there so much anymore.
Lovely laser printers that became ultimately useless.
Don't have any experience with this.
Two wire AppleTalk networks with all of the speed of ISDN on a good day.
I've been using apples for... God, 5 years now. I've never used AppleTalk. So, networking at the speed of ISDN? Meh, for outdated technology, it was reasonable in the era it was a part of. Of course, there's always ArcNet... are you going to accuse Linux of being horrible for supporting ArcNet still?
Cute little useless Newtons.
Newer, very useful iPod Touchs and iPod Phones. The trick is not to count failures, but what they learned from them. I'd like to personally say THANK GOD Microsoft was smart enough to learn their lesson from Bob. (The UI, not the scripting language.)
Servers that could never rise above simple workgroup needs.
Outdated information that pretty much applied to Windows NT4 at the same time...
Special connections and exceptions needed to network with anything else but perhaps NFS or wicked Novell patches.
I kind of figure they supported open standards ok... if you're complaining that they didn't support windows SMB quickly enough, then that's retarded. Microsoft didn't want to hand out their advantage for a long time. No less, you complain about AppleTalk then would suggest that SMB is some high-holy right to connect to... transmitting a 4GiB directory over SMB to India from Washington takes about a week, at least in the magnitude of days. Transferring via HTTP? Maybe 2 hours. Awesome protocol right?
Wonderful and proprietary (given few others used them) PPC CPUs.
This is my BIGGEST gripe about what you're talking about because PPC CPUs are far less proprietary than anyone ever seems to imagine them to be. It is _THE_ most popular embedded chip in modern devices. x86s are limited almost strictly to the desktop and servers because it's the only markets that x86 design research and money has been spent. Sure, there are a few low-scale x86 embedded vendors out there, but when you look at what they offer in x86, and what they offer in RISC, it becomes apparent that the only reason to go with x86 is to support windows and other programs unavailable for any other architecture.
I'm sure others can count the way. Others can see the bloom on the rose, and I still have marks from the thorns. Oddly, I still use a PowerBook G4, alongside a heavy-duty (and less expensive) HP core-duo notebook. Only for games, of course....
I see the bloom and have marks from the thorns. Only an idiot would let the thorniness of previous iterations affect current thinking. Just about everything you detailed upon why either Apple struggling in a market dominated by a competitor or something they've learned from.
The reason you still use a PowerBook G4 is actually surprising, considering that few laptops are worth anything after a few years. I used my PowerBook G4 550MHz for about 5 years, and recently, a roommate used it for all of her computer needs. (World of Warcraft kind of made her
This is especially true for Windows, in which long-term heavy usage of COM (which was explicitly designed to promote modularity) has meant that you can do things like swap out the IE rendering engine for Firefox, and it'll work.
Well... in a way. COM is now pretty dated, and it required a lot of extra programming to make sure that things were properly supported. Programs that bundle with Microsoft Windows are extremely integrated, regardless of whatever libraries and APIs are made available. There is no "cd %notepad_dir%; make" command for the Windows system, literally, there is no way to know for sure if something needs to be rebuilt without literally recompiling the whole source code.
You make a change to some random library, that changes the publics for that library, and that disseminates out and touches potentially tons of binaries. The reason Vista started using componentization is exactly for this reason, so that you could trust that updating a certain library only hit a limited number of binaries. However, even this isn't ideal, as many of the changes to library don't propagate changes out to binaries, but since they're all in the same component, you have to bundle all of them together, even if most of the component is just updating version numbers.
For quite awhile the Service Pack for Vista was looking at being a ton of GiBs big... once they made some changes to be able to again only patch at the binary level *gasp* the SP size went down. Oddly enough it was called "small SP", even though it is still larger than other SPs before. (There's just data to "touch" the version number of all the binaries that didn't change despite being in a component that was serviced.)
(it's only done at compile time for most programs).
As noted above, most of the internal modularity of Windows the OS is done at compile time as well. As for updating things, I've updated on the fly the Linux kernel, X-Windows, WINE, and Mozilla/Gecko before on the ol' Red Hat systems. Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your troubles from, but I've never experienced any of them myself. Most notably tough, I don't have to recompile everything from scratch each time a new version of Gentoo is released... rather, I just compile what was updated. Windows Vista still isn't uncomplicated enough in compiling to be able to do this. No less, its dependence upon the Microsoft Corporate network.
And you're actually wrong. Mach is a microkernel. But just because the kernel is a microkernel doesn't mean that the stuff built upon it actually make use of that microkernel. Windows has also been based on a microkernel since Windows NT. The difference between a microkernel and a macrokernel are pretty irrelevant once you get to the layer of stuff on top of the OS.
I've used Vista for extended periods of time. At first, when I was working on Windows 2003 SP2, I ran that on all of my machines, but once that product was out the door, I turned my focus over to what the rest of the company was working on.
In short, my 1GiB of RAM box that ran 2003 SP2 wonderfully well and smoothly, then crawled to a halt as Windows Vista x64 wanted to use 1.5GiB of RAM simply at boot up. Entirely serious about this. I wondered why my box was so slow all the time, and eventually worked it down to that. Turn off Aqua... I mean, Aero? That saved about 512MiB of RAM... as a result my computer was STILL thrashing virtual memory just to run Notepad.
The situation was so entirely complete as to completely make my job ineffective until it was fixed. Doing anything on the machine was painful, let alone attempting to do things like email, and code. Eventually, I got 2x 1GiB RAM sticks and we swapped them out, and the machine actually started performing fairly well. This was the point at which I realized that it was trying to use 1.5GiB of RAM (with only 1GiB of RAM it reported about 800MiB of RAM used maximum... lovely how it doesn't mention how much memory it's TRYING to use, only what it has actually allocated of physical RAM, right?) The system ran fine for about a month, then lost all usability again.
This time, instead of begging bosses for more RAM or whatever, I switched back to 2003 SP2. Hey, it worked, and that's what I needed to do my job... I didn't need to sit on a thrashing computer all day long losing hours of productivity.
Later, when SP1 started getting along, I installed it on a 32-bit WAY old system, (machine rating: 1.0 Apparently, it doesn't go lower) and it was actually quite responsive for what the system was. I'd give an OK out to Vista SP1, but before that, bleh, God it sucked, and I seriously did. It's not a "I heard from my uncle" it was a, I used it first-hand, and it was the worst POS operating system I had ever used (now, I didn't ever use Windows ME... so YMMV).
I would still likely recommend getting 2003 SP2 rather than Vista.. even for a desktop machine, it will give you better performance and usability. SP1? Meh, it's a hard call, people who would prefer a Consumer OS are probably better off with that.
Consumer OSes don't enter extended maintenance. Security updates for Windows XP will stop at the lifecycle end of the product (Jan 2009). Although, XP Pro might be considered non-consumer.
Either way, a fix has to hit a very very very high bar before Microsoft will backport a fix to an extended-support downlevel OS. That or someone just pays them a bunch of money. (There are still people getting full-maintenance support for Windows 2000.)
Although, all of the XP work, save work on Embedded is in India anymore anyways... so, we'll see how well security fixes make the Redmond -> India jump... typically takes a lot time since you have a day turn around on any sort of questions you ask. >_
Let's kind of neglect the point that "may your daughters bear you children" implies that he impregnates his own daughters.... it should be "may your daughters bear you many multiracial GRANDchildren."
Of course, with the crap spewing out of some AC's mouths, it's possible that the first statement is the proper intended meaning.
I didn't subscribe to Slashdot... someone bought it for me or something. All I know is one day I didn't have it, then one day I did, and I didn't pay for it.
They should try to bust the myth that you could build a nuclear weapon without having government clearance.
hehe.... I bet they would have a hard time convincing their insurance people of that one. I'm sure it would be like "Ok, blowing up a concrete truck, ok... but YOU WANNA DO WHAT?"
Yes, BMI is useless at HIGHER weight ranges. This is because muscle weighs more than fat. As such, a largely muscular person, The Rock, Stallone, and Schwarzenegger, all have higher BMIs, however their body fat percentage is relatively low.
BMI and weight likely have little to do with "pornstar range" as the weight range, and body fat percentage are not signficant criteria. The size of certain other attributes are.
While all of this is true, a low BMI cannot be the result of anything different than low body fat, and low muscle weight percentage. How does this work?
High BMI = (high body fat % or high muscular weight %) Low BMI = not (High BMI) = not (high body fat % or high muscular weight %) = (not high body fat) and (not high muscular weight %)
Now, I know that "not High BMI" includes much more than low BMI, but significantly lower BMI can only be achieved by not having either: high body fat, or high muscular weight.
This sentence is poorly worded. You awkwardly used "actual" twice, so it sounds awkward.
Conversational speech. You can forget you used one word, and use it again. However, logically, it still makes sense. In fact, Grammar Nazis nitpick things that are not part of the real Grammar for English, i.e. such as comma usage.
I don't know if you were making a joke, but you did you "awkward" twice yourself.
You missed a comma after "but" and you put a preposition at the end of the sentence above.
"Few people really screw up grammar, but, rather, they fail..." ??? That looks absurd. "but rather" is a single conjugating phrase, and shouldn't be separated by a comma.
As for the preposition, English like all Germanic languages has compound verbs, which have an attached preposition. The structure of the sentence is ((subordinating conjunction: that) (subject: Grammar Nazis) (verb:nitpick upon)). If you've never seen "to nitpick upon" in the dictionary, that's because Grammar Nazis have done a really good job of trying to convince people that English doesn't have complex verbs like the rest of Germanic languages.
Two-sided example from German: "Ich schlag den Tisch, auf dem ich die Kuppe gestellt habe." You used a comma splice, that is, you put two sentences together with a comma rather than a semicolon.
Well, according to Wikipedia a comma split is: "... when two independent clauses are joined by a comma with no conjunction."
Last I looked, "however" is a conjuction, but I could be wrong. Oh Merriam-webster.com says: "Main Entry: 1however Function: conjunction". Sweet, I'm not wrong, and I didn't comma splice. Two birds with one stone.
If you want to get into the icky details of "however" being a conjunctive adverb, fine, remove the "it" after the however. Now it's right.
Another comma splice, you've really got to stop doing that.
As an aside comment, I would have used em-dashes to separate the clause: "simply they are dogmatically bound to believe that the shadows are reality", but this isn't formal speech, so I used the more informal comma. Also, from: http://www.geocities.com/markboonejesusfreak/academic/commas
non-restrictive element: a portion of a sentence that is not grammatically necessary to complete the meaning of the sentence.
Now you're not maintaining parallel form with the "it's" construct, you meant "concordance" instead of "concordation," and used incorrect supplementation of the phrase with a period.
Did you miss that the phrase was surrounded in parantheses? Because that means it's an external comment, and not subject to the same form rules, as they could even have been left by someone else. Again, it's an aside comment. (Something you shouldn't do in formal language anyways.)
Yes, "Concordance". I used the regular nominalization of the verb "concord" which is "-tion", which unfortunately, is not the standard irregular form used in English.
Again, as an aside comment, the parathetical comment was an individual statement all of its own. The period is there to indicate that that particular tangential thought line was complete.
If you write a complex sentence, then you shouldn't put a comma between the two parts.
A question of style.
However you need commas after words like "Rather," but not after "science".
Admittedly, yes, if I were writing formal English, I would need a comma after "rather".
And honestly, I always place a comma before any conjunction... that's just the way I role.
Height: 5 ft 11 in (1.8 m) Weight: 59 kg (130 lb) Calculated BMI: 18.1
And as for a reference range of BMI:
BMI Categories:
Underweight =
So, my BMI of 18.3 is underweight you stupid jackass. And it is in supermodel range.
Comparing measurements as well: Karolina Kurkova: 33-23-34.5 (US) Me: 33-26-34
So, yeah, our measurements are pretty much the same as well.:P And for reference I wear a size 4, which is one of the two sizes that supermodels actually wear (those are 2 and 4.)
It has been recognized that the critical amount of body fat leading to amenorrhea is below 17%, while 22% is needed for regular menstrual cycles
So, as someone mentioned before by my BMI I would have 22% body fat, so I'm just at the cusp of regular menstrual cycles, which explains my mostly regular cycle.
You're using the wording of a journalist's article to defeat me?
I don't think they are diseases, but rather medical conditions. The Journalist thinking about dumbing down the article or just from plain stupidity, established that medical condition => disease.
A BMI of 18 is likely in the size 4 range once you get to supermodel heights (5'10" and higher), while at lower heights, like around 5'6" may perhaps get down to a size 0.
While I would happily gain more weight, my body will not do so. Metabolism.
No, because Grammar Nazis nitpick over insignificant details that do not actually apply to the actual grammar of the language. Few people really screw up grammar, but rather, they fail to uphold the arbitrary rules emplaced upon the formal language that Grammar Nazis nitpick upon.
"I ain't got no money" is actually entirely grammatical (from a linguistics point of view), however it fails to meet the standards of formal language that Grammar Nazis prefer.
Interestingly, it could be related to Plato's Allegory of the cave. Grammar Nazis actually understand grammar little better than the average native speaker, simply they are dogmatically bound to believe that the shadows are reality, and that the arbitrary rules they have established to explain grammar are what grammar is really about.
Those who have gotten out of the cave, and see the reality of grammar, and the entire flexibility thereof, understand better than any Grammar Nazi why the above phrase was actually grammatical. And when they would attempt to explain why it is actually grammatical (it's SVO order, it's negated, and has appropriate concordation with the negation.) the Grammar Nazi looks at his cave wall and says that those reasons don't exist, because "ain't" isn't a word, and a "double negative" would logically make a positive.
Grammar Nazis are to grammar as Chiropraters are to medicine, because neither actually really practice the science described. Rather they study fringe elements related to that science, and believe their positions to be equally valid as the actual science itself.
Just because a woman is sick and tired of sexual jokes makes her fat? Well, crap, we need to redefine "fat" then, because I have a BMI of 18.3 If you're wondering, that's supermodel range.
And some people smoke till they're 90 and don't get cancer, yet there doesn't seem to be any confusion about what's causing what there.
Unlike smoking, where lung cancer susceptability is likely in the high 90's of precentile, CTS susceptability is very low. Most people will not get CTS no matter how much they use a computer, whereas most people will get lung cancer from smoking.
The difference is in the likelihood rate, even though both of them are fairly equally the same thing. (Triggering a susceptability.)
Slashdot Mirror
Entschuldung, aber ich glaube dass "Dein" nicht gross geschrieben werden sÃllte, ausserdem dass es als erste Wort einer Satz ist. :) Aber so hast du so vielen recht... Mit fast jedem Amerikaner kann man solche Dinge sagen: "Mein Englisch ist besser als deine ."
:)
Es sind nur die Einige (von dem bin ich eine), die sagen kÃnnen: "so, kÃnnen wir aber nicht kennen, denn ich spreche Deutsch bei C1... und wie gut sprichst du English?"
They make it out as if I'm the one making close-minded, stereotypical decisions. I have travelled as an American. However, unlike the less globally-minded Americans, I have learned quite a bit about foreign languages.
I'll give you a story from my god-mother. She was in France and standing in line at a Bank to exchange money. The man in front of her was an irate American upset that the teller only spoke French. He was yelling, he was upset, and the Frenchman was just standing there taking the abuse, oblivious to what the man was yelling about. My god-mother worried that her four years of High School French may not be sufficient to interact with the teller, was getting nervous. When the man finally gave up and left, she went up to the teller and said, "Pardon moi, mas je ne-" and was cut off by the teller telling here, "I speak English."
If you want to know why foreigners are always upset at Americans it's because most Americans seem to expect all foreigners to speak English. This really isn't a belief that they isolate to American. Their feeling is that if you want to interact with Americans, then you must learn English. The notion is pretty silly actually, but most Americans still hold on to it.
I've been involved with conversations with non-Americans, and since I'm not the arrogant American thinking "everything is best in America", and I'm actually very very critical of America, they respect the humility, understand that the control of my country is a bit more than out of my hands, and that most of all. I'm not like the stereotypical Americans that refuse to learn any foreign language, refuse to believe any other country might have systems that work better than America's, etc.
I'll tell you straight forward, that it's not you as an American they hate. It's that you represent the arrogant bastard American that they've met their whole life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture
:) My data was pretty old, likely before ARM's advantages were widely available. However, PowerPC still probably has some crazy percentage over x86 though.
Looking at that, it looks like my information is outdated. ARM is about 75% of all of the embedded processors.
It does make sense the ARM has a lot, and I mean a lot to offer. Thumbcode and all sorts of other awesome things.
Either way, x86 is by far one of the smallest markets for CPUs being limited almost exclusively to desktops and laptops.
A number of factual errors are readily apparent in your post. The 68K is a CISC processor, and not a "genetic" predecessor to the PowerPC. The only link they have is that the 68K was using in Macs before they switched to the PowerPC. The PowerPC line is actually descendent from the POWER designs done by IBM before IBM, Apple, and Motorola came together to make the PowerPC line. In the development of the PowerPC line a few instructions were removed from the POWER instruction set, and a full 32-bit/64-bit ISA was designed... right from the start. (Not 64-bit extensions of a 32-bit extension of a 16-bit chip which was an alternative to a primarily 8-bit version previous to it.)
Motorola still uses PowerPCs... you may not really be aware of it because no one focuses that much upon what is running what, except on Desktops and Laptops. If the speed of the processor is not something that can be made into a selling point, then there is no reason for advertising to talk about what it is. It's pretty much that simple. However, Motorola is still very active with PowerPC designs. The G4 was not implemented specifically for Apple, it was designed as an Embedded processor. Which is why Apple's G4 PowerBooks were getting 5 hours of life when equivalent PC Laptops were getting 2-3-ish.
Four chip families? I'm wondering where you get this. The x86/x64 line is obvious, as is PowerPC (and other POWER derivatives), ARM, 68K, Z80, Sparc, MIPS... that's just off the top of my head. It's true though that the Itanium and DEC Alpha have both been retired (oddly against what would seem common sense as both of them were/are superior to many other architecture lineages). However, Microsoft Server 2008 still supports the Itanium.
As well, NT4 did run and was offered on both PowerPC and Alpha. It never ran on a 68K as far as I'm aware. They did however also support MIPS, at least on the blackboard.
Everyone focuses on new technologies making crappy designs better... spend enough time and you can make Bubblesort work much faster than Quicksort for the vast majority of cases that it will meet up with. However, Quicksort still remains quite a bit better. I'd love to see us focus on new technologies to make new designs work better... but then I'm a bit of an idealist.
I admit that rereading the subject line is a bit of an "oh.... crap :("
Although, again... PowerPC is the single largest embedded chip.
I already said that there were x86 embedded chips, but when you compare their performance against available RISC chips their performance sucks.
All three major consoles are PowerPC now. The Playstation 3 uses the Cell processor, which operates with a PowerPC chip as the general-purpose CPU, and then the specialized cells are different, but similar to PowerPC architectures. The XBox 360 is three dual core PowerPC chips with some form of altered Altivec. The Wii, much like the GameCube it's substantially based upon depends upon a pretty much stock PowerPC chip.
The reason Apple was forced into adopting the x86 chipset is because they could get neither IBM nor Motorola to produce chips in the same way that the x86 chips are targeted. The x86 chip has long been the de facto standard of the desktop and non-big-iron servers, and as such has almost all of its significant development in this area has been spent targetting it, however the PowerPC chip has largely targeted different markets, and so Apple just could get the type of CPUs from either of the major PowerPC chip makers that they wanted. Naturally, they then went to a company that could provide them with the type of chips that they wanted.
As for "sheer numbers" IBM is the single largest chip manufacturer in the world... and they don't make x86 chips.
Crappy, closed-technology machines.
Yes, closed-technology, what with their advancement of PCI, USB, Firewire, etc.
The cult of the single-button mouse.
Simplicity by design. If you might only have one mouse-button then you can get everything done with only one mouse button. Seriously, who here on Slashdot has not had to explain to someone the difference between RIGHT click, and LEFT click. The fact that use use the multiple button in games and such is entirely beside the point. I have an 8 button mouse that I use with my Mac anymore, and it works fine.
Reseller programs from hell.
Ok, you have stuff here. Apple has always been strict about resellers and such. In some ways it has always worked out for them, because the support has been better. Now they're selling them at Best Buy *looks around* I don't think the red-tape for resellers is there so much anymore.
Lovely laser printers that became ultimately useless.
Don't have any experience with this.
Two wire AppleTalk networks with all of the speed of ISDN on a good day.
I've been using apples for... God, 5 years now. I've never used AppleTalk. So, networking at the speed of ISDN? Meh, for outdated technology, it was reasonable in the era it was a part of. Of course, there's always ArcNet... are you going to accuse Linux of being horrible for supporting ArcNet still?
Cute little useless Newtons.
Newer, very useful iPod Touchs and iPod Phones. The trick is not to count failures, but what they learned from them. I'd like to personally say THANK GOD Microsoft was smart enough to learn their lesson from Bob. (The UI, not the scripting language.)
Servers that could never rise above simple workgroup needs.
Outdated information that pretty much applied to Windows NT4 at the same time...
Special connections and exceptions needed to network with anything else but perhaps NFS or wicked Novell patches.
I kind of figure they supported open standards ok... if you're complaining that they didn't support windows SMB quickly enough, then that's retarded. Microsoft didn't want to hand out their advantage for a long time. No less, you complain about AppleTalk then would suggest that SMB is some high-holy right to connect to... transmitting a 4GiB directory over SMB to India from Washington takes about a week, at least in the magnitude of days. Transferring via HTTP? Maybe 2 hours. Awesome protocol right?
Wonderful and proprietary (given few others used them) PPC CPUs.
This is my BIGGEST gripe about what you're talking about because PPC CPUs are far less proprietary than anyone ever seems to imagine them to be. It is _THE_ most popular embedded chip in modern devices. x86s are limited almost strictly to the desktop and servers because it's the only markets that x86 design research and money has been spent. Sure, there are a few low-scale x86 embedded vendors out there, but when you look at what they offer in x86, and what they offer in RISC, it becomes apparent that the only reason to go with x86 is to support windows and other programs unavailable for any other architecture.
I'm sure others can count the way. Others can see the bloom on the rose, and I still have marks from the thorns. Oddly, I still use a PowerBook G4, alongside a heavy-duty (and less expensive) HP core-duo notebook. Only for games, of course....
I see the bloom and have marks from the thorns. Only an idiot would let the thorniness of previous iterations affect current thinking. Just about everything you detailed upon why either Apple struggling in a market dominated by a competitor or something they've learned from.
The reason you still use a PowerBook G4 is actually surprising, considering that few laptops are worth anything after a few years. I used my PowerBook G4 550MHz for about 5 years, and recently, a roommate used it for all of her computer needs. (World of Warcraft kind of made her
This is especially true for Windows, in which long-term heavy usage of COM (which was explicitly designed to promote modularity) has meant that you can do things like swap out the IE rendering engine for Firefox, and it'll work.
Well... in a way. COM is now pretty dated, and it required a lot of extra programming to make sure that things were properly supported. Programs that bundle with Microsoft Windows are extremely integrated, regardless of whatever libraries and APIs are made available. There is no "cd %notepad_dir%; make" command for the Windows system, literally, there is no way to know for sure if something needs to be rebuilt without literally recompiling the whole source code.
You make a change to some random library, that changes the publics for that library, and that disseminates out and touches potentially tons of binaries. The reason Vista started using componentization is exactly for this reason, so that you could trust that updating a certain library only hit a limited number of binaries. However, even this isn't ideal, as many of the changes to library don't propagate changes out to binaries, but since they're all in the same component, you have to bundle all of them together, even if most of the component is just updating version numbers.
For quite awhile the Service Pack for Vista was looking at being a ton of GiBs big... once they made some changes to be able to again only patch at the binary level *gasp* the SP size went down. Oddly enough it was called "small SP", even though it is still larger than other SPs before. (There's just data to "touch" the version number of all the binaries that didn't change despite being in a component that was serviced.)
(it's only done at compile time for most programs).
As noted above, most of the internal modularity of Windows the OS is done at compile time as well. As for updating things, I've updated on the fly the Linux kernel, X-Windows, WINE, and Mozilla/Gecko before on the ol' Red Hat systems. Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your troubles from, but I've never experienced any of them myself. Most notably tough, I don't have to recompile everything from scratch each time a new version of Gentoo is released... rather, I just compile what was updated. Windows Vista still isn't uncomplicated enough in compiling to be able to do this. No less, its dependence upon the Microsoft Corporate network.
And you're actually wrong. Mach is a microkernel. But just because the kernel is a microkernel doesn't mean that the stuff built upon it actually make use of that microkernel. Windows has also been based on a microkernel since Windows NT. The difference between a microkernel and a macrokernel are pretty irrelevant once you get to the layer of stuff on top of the OS.
I've used Vista for extended periods of time. At first, when I was working on Windows 2003 SP2, I ran that on all of my machines, but once that product was out the door, I turned my focus over to what the rest of the company was working on.
In short, my 1GiB of RAM box that ran 2003 SP2 wonderfully well and smoothly, then crawled to a halt as Windows Vista x64 wanted to use 1.5GiB of RAM simply at boot up. Entirely serious about this. I wondered why my box was so slow all the time, and eventually worked it down to that. Turn off Aqua... I mean, Aero? That saved about 512MiB of RAM... as a result my computer was STILL thrashing virtual memory just to run Notepad.
The situation was so entirely complete as to completely make my job ineffective until it was fixed. Doing anything on the machine was painful, let alone attempting to do things like email, and code. Eventually, I got 2x 1GiB RAM sticks and we swapped them out, and the machine actually started performing fairly well. This was the point at which I realized that it was trying to use 1.5GiB of RAM (with only 1GiB of RAM it reported about 800MiB of RAM used maximum... lovely how it doesn't mention how much memory it's TRYING to use, only what it has actually allocated of physical RAM, right?) The system ran fine for about a month, then lost all usability again.
This time, instead of begging bosses for more RAM or whatever, I switched back to 2003 SP2. Hey, it worked, and that's what I needed to do my job... I didn't need to sit on a thrashing computer all day long losing hours of productivity.
Later, when SP1 started getting along, I installed it on a 32-bit WAY old system, (machine rating: 1.0 Apparently, it doesn't go lower) and it was actually quite responsive for what the system was. I'd give an OK out to Vista SP1, but before that, bleh, God it sucked, and I seriously did. It's not a "I heard from my uncle" it was a, I used it first-hand, and it was the worst POS operating system I had ever used (now, I didn't ever use Windows ME... so YMMV).
I would still likely recommend getting 2003 SP2 rather than Vista.. even for a desktop machine, it will give you better performance and usability. SP1? Meh, it's a hard call, people who would prefer a Consumer OS are probably better off with that.
Consumer OSes don't enter extended maintenance. Security updates for Windows XP will stop at the lifecycle end of the product (Jan 2009). Although, XP Pro might be considered non-consumer.
Either way, a fix has to hit a very very very high bar before Microsoft will backport a fix to an extended-support downlevel OS. That or someone just pays them a bunch of money. (There are still people getting full-maintenance support for Windows 2000.)
Although, all of the XP work, save work on Embedded is in India anymore anyways... so, we'll see how well security fixes make the Redmond -> India jump... typically takes a lot time since you have a day turn around on any sort of questions you ask. >_
Let's kind of neglect the point that "may your daughters bear you children" implies that he impregnates his own daughters.... it should be "may your daughters bear you many multiracial GRANDchildren."
Of course, with the crap spewing out of some AC's mouths, it's possible that the first statement is the proper intended meaning.
I didn't subscribe to Slashdot... someone bought it for me or something. All I know is one day I didn't have it, then one day I did, and I didn't pay for it.
*shrug*
They should try to bust the myth that you could build a nuclear weapon without having government clearance.
hehe.... I bet they would have a hard time convincing their insurance people of that one. I'm sure it would be like "Ok, blowing up a concrete truck, ok... but YOU WANNA DO WHAT?"
I think it's faster to come up with something funny to say, rather than something profound.
I for one welcome our new irradiated cockroach overlords.
:(
Really, I apologize, I can't help it...
You forgot:
- Single
Yes, BMI is useless at HIGHER weight ranges. This is because muscle weighs more than fat. As such, a largely muscular person, The Rock, Stallone, and Schwarzenegger, all have higher BMIs, however their body fat percentage is relatively low.
BMI and weight likely have little to do with "pornstar range" as the weight range, and body fat percentage are not signficant criteria. The size of certain other attributes are.
While all of this is true, a low BMI cannot be the result of anything different than low body fat, and low muscle weight percentage. How does this work?
High BMI = (high body fat % or high muscular weight %)
Low BMI = not (High BMI) = not (high body fat % or high muscular weight %) = (not high body fat) and (not high muscular weight %)
Now, I know that "not High BMI" includes much more than low BMI, but significantly lower BMI can only be achieved by not having either: high body fat, or high muscular weight.
Conversational speech. You can forget you used one word, and use it again.
However, logically, it still makes sense. In fact, Grammar Nazis nitpick things that are not part of the real Grammar for English, i.e. such as comma usage.
I don't know if you were making a joke, but you did you "awkward" twice yourself.
"Few people really screw up grammar, but, rather, they fail
As for the preposition, English like all Germanic languages has compound verbs, which have an attached preposition. The structure of the sentence is ((subordinating conjunction: that) (subject: Grammar Nazis) (verb:nitpick upon)). If you've never seen "to nitpick upon" in the dictionary, that's because Grammar Nazis have done a really good job of trying to convince people that English doesn't have complex verbs like the rest of Germanic languages.
Two-sided example from German:
"Ich schlag den Tisch, auf dem ich die Kuppe gestellt habe." You used a comma splice, that is, you put two sentences together with a comma rather than a semicolon.
Well, according to Wikipedia a comma split is: "... when two independent clauses are joined by a comma with no conjunction."
Last I looked, "however" is a conjuction, but I could be wrong. Oh Merriam-webster.com says: "Main Entry: 1however Function: conjunction". Sweet, I'm not wrong, and I didn't comma splice. Two birds with one stone.
If you want to get into the icky details of "however" being a conjunctive adverb, fine, remove the "it" after the however. Now it's right.
As an aside comment, I would have used em-dashes to separate the clause: "simply they are dogmatically bound to believe that the shadows are reality", but this isn't formal speech, so I used the more informal comma. Also, from: http://www.geocities.com/markboonejesusfreak/academic/commas
Did you miss that the phrase was surrounded in parantheses? Because that means it's an external comment, and not subject to the same form rules, as they could even have been left by someone else. Again, it's an aside comment. (Something you shouldn't do in formal language anyways.)
Yes, "Concordance". I used the regular nominalization of the verb "concord" which is "-tion", which unfortunately, is not the standard irregular form used in English.
Again, as an aside comment, the parathetical comment was an individual statement all of its own. The period is there to indicate that that particular tangential thought line was complete.
A question of style.
Admittedly, yes, if I were writing formal English, I would need a comma after "rather".
And honestly, I always place a comma before any conjunction... that's just the way I role.
Height: 5 ft 11 in (1.8 m)
Weight: 59 kg (130 lb)
Calculated BMI: 18.1
And as for a reference range of BMI:
Spelling is entirely arbitrary, thus is entirely the domain of Spelling Nazis. (sorry, I can't help you there)
So, as someone mentioned before by my BMI I would have 22% body fat, so I'm just at the cusp of regular menstrual cycles, which explains my mostly regular cycle.
You're using the wording of a journalist's article to defeat me?
I don't think they are diseases, but rather medical conditions. The Journalist thinking about dumbing down the article or just from plain stupidity, established that medical condition => disease.
No, not just in 1950.
Karolina Kurkova has a BMI of 18.x
A BMI of 18 is likely in the size 4 range once you get to supermodel heights (5'10" and higher), while at lower heights, like around 5'6" may perhaps get down to a size 0.
While I would happily gain more weight, my body will not do so. Metabolism.
No, because Grammar Nazis nitpick over insignificant details that do not actually apply to the actual grammar of the language. Few people really screw up grammar, but rather, they fail to uphold the arbitrary rules emplaced upon the formal language that Grammar Nazis nitpick upon.
"I ain't got no money" is actually entirely grammatical (from a linguistics point of view), however it fails to meet the standards of formal language that Grammar Nazis prefer.
Interestingly, it could be related to Plato's Allegory of the cave. Grammar Nazis actually understand grammar little better than the average native speaker, simply they are dogmatically bound to believe that the shadows are reality, and that the arbitrary rules they have established to explain grammar are what grammar is really about.
Those who have gotten out of the cave, and see the reality of grammar, and the entire flexibility thereof, understand better than any Grammar Nazi why the above phrase was actually grammatical. And when they would attempt to explain why it is actually grammatical (it's SVO order, it's negated, and has appropriate concordation with the negation.) the Grammar Nazi looks at his cave wall and says that those reasons don't exist, because "ain't" isn't a word, and a "double negative" would logically make a positive.
Grammar Nazis are to grammar as Chiropraters are to medicine, because neither actually really practice the science described. Rather they study fringe elements related to that science, and believe their positions to be equally valid as the actual science itself.
Just because a woman is sick and tired of sexual jokes makes her fat? Well, crap, we need to redefine "fat" then, because I have a BMI of 18.3 If you're wondering, that's supermodel range.
Unlike smoking, where lung cancer susceptability is likely in the high 90's of precentile, CTS susceptability is very low. Most people will not get CTS no matter how much they use a computer, whereas most people will get lung cancer from smoking.
The difference is in the likelihood rate, even though both of them are fairly equally the same thing. (Triggering a susceptability.)