Come on people, get the terminology right. Ghosting and motion blur are not the same thing!
Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?
Motion blur is what you thing ghosting is. It is caused by poor refresh times, more specifically it is caused the amount of time it takes for a pixel to become unlit, or "switch off". So LCD screens that have a poor response time often show a trail after a moving object that looks like a ghost of the object.
Understandable that you could get the two confused, but still wrong./mike
According to the CIA World Factbook, Brazil has a per capita GDP of $8,900. US per capita GDP is $37,800 (all US-$, all figures 2003 est.).
And this doesn't even take distribution of wealth into account. According to the above mentioned source 25% of Brazil's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
So you have a small upper class, a small middle class, a huge blue collar working class (with many people out of work) and a lot of people unaccounted for.
If you're living on $741 a month, do you really spend $36 on a license you essentially don't need (since there's no enforcement in Brazil). Also, consider that those $36 are 20% of your monthly income (not of your monthly disposable income).
I don't really get who the folks at Microsoft think their target audience is. The upper class can afford XP Pro/Home licenses. They've either already purchased those (probably OEM licenses) or simply don't care. Anyone outside that demographic just won't be able to afford a Starter license, even if they wanted to.
If someone doesn't have the money for a nice computer with a legit copy of WinXP Pro and all the other goodies, they probably don't have the money to run their own home LAN or the RAM/CPU power to run lots of demanding apps at once. I don't see how this is a bad idea. Sure, it's MS being manipulative, but look at it this way - less features means less security holes!
NASA has a good record of recovering after a tragedy.
If you take the Apollo program as an example, the very first Apollo mission was a disaster with three astronauts killed. And yet after that, the Apollo missions were great successes (although Apollo 13 was a close call, of course).
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with a faulty mirror, but this was fixed and Hubble's become a great success, too.
What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.
Despite the fact that there are many extremely smart and talented people at NASA, it, like every bureaucracy, has become an entrenched special interest, more concerned with preserving its budget than in actually moving the cause of space flight forward. The Space Shuttle, no matter how many times it has been retrofitted, is still 1970s technology. It's hideously expensive to launch and requires a vast support army to operate. But that vast support army is precisely why it exists. The space shuttle exists to serve the International Space Station. The International Space Station exists to be serviced by the space shuttle. Both provide lots of aerospace industry jobs and this is, in fact, their primary function. Turf and caution have become the watchwords at the highest echelons of NASA, who are more concerned with protecting their bureaucratic empire than moving the exploration and colonization of space forward. The shuttle monopoly has strangled the development of alternative launch vehicles, something the X Prize has only partially offset. A lot of people had predicted we'd not only have launched a manned mission to Mars by now, but set up a colony. See any sign of that?
Until there's a serious shakeup among the upper echelons of NASA bureaucrats, expect for the U.S. manned space program to creep along rather than soaring.
I thought they were retiring the shuttle program? Personally I am to the point where these shuttle flights are a big waste of money "if" they are not doing anything innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts.
Having two non-identical CPUs in the same package, or in the same machine, isn't that useful. Typically, the "wierd" ones sit idle unless whatever application that specifically uses them is running. The operating system usually has no idea what to do with the "wierd" processor, so it gets managed as a peripheral, which doesn't work very well.
There were some wierd Mac variations in the 1980s with a second CPU on a plug-in board. They could run Photoshop faster, but otherwise were useless.
There are really only two multi-CPU architectures that are generally useful: shared-memory symmetrical multiprocessors, and networked clusters with no shared memory. Many other architectures have been tried - partially shared memory machines, shared-memory machines where some CPUs lacked some features like floating point, hypercubes, single-instruction-multiple-datastream machines, and dataflow processors. None has achieved lasting success.
About the only unusual architecture ever sold in volume is the Playstation 2, with two vector processors. Even there, the vector processors are mostly used as a GPU. (Although one major game physics engine actually runs in the PS2 vector processors, an impressive achievement.)
Programming for wierd architectures is hard, requires much tool development, and results in programs tied to specific hardware. So it doesn't happen much. That's why the wierd architectures fail. They're never that much faster, and by the time the software works, the hardware market is somewhere else.
I believe that we're going to see a performance plateau with processors and raw CPU power for the next 5 years or so.
The only way CPU manufacturers are going to get more *OPS in the future is with many cores, and that's going to require either slower or the same kind of speeds (GHz-wise) as things are today. To get programs to run faster under these circumstances you need some kind of explicitly parallel programming.
We haven't seen the right level of parallelism yet, IMHO. Unix started out with process-level parallelism, but it looks like thread-level paralellism has beaten it, even though it is much more prone to programmer errors.
On the other end of the scale, EPIC architectures like Itanium haven't been able to outcompete older architectures like x86 because the explicitly parallel can be made implicit with clever run-time analysis of code. Intel (and, of course, AMD) are their own worst enemy on the Itanium front. All the CPU h/w prediction etc. removes the benefit of the clever compiler needed for EPIC.
Maybe some kind of middle ground can be reached between the two. Itanium instructions work in triples, and you can effectively view the instruction set as programming three processors working in parallel but with the same register set. This is close (but not quite the same) to what's going to be required to efficiently program multi-core CPUs, beyond simple SMP-style thread-level parallelism. Maybe we need some kind of language which has its concurrency built in (something sort of akin to Concurrent Pascal, but much more up to date), or has no data to share and can be decomposed and analyzed with complete information via lambda calculus. I'm thinking of the functional languages, like ML (consider F# than MS Research is working on), or Haskell.
With a functional language, different cores can work on different branches of the overall graph, and resolve them independentantly, before they're tied together later on.
It's hard to see the kind of mindset changes required for this kind of thinking in software development happening very quickly, though.
I find this interesting, every machine Apple sells except at the definite low end is dual CPU SMP now, and it's been this way for awhile. Now Intel/AMD seem to be realizing "oh yeah, dual cpus, maybe that's something we should start targeting for the mass market instead of just the high end" (though AMD seems to be pretty comfy with the idea already). I wonder why Apple doesn't seem interested in dual cores though. Intel/AMD seem to be treating multicore tech as their way of getting SMP out of the power-user range, Apple doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with it even though POWER has had multicore ability for a really long time. What's up with this, is there something I'm missing?
I would like to see a more multi-threaded approach to game programming in general, and not all the benefits would necessarily be about performance.
One thing that has bugged me a long time about a lot of games (this has particular relevence to multi-player games, but also single player games to some extent) is the 'game loading' screen. Or rather, the fact that during the 'loading' screen I lose all control of, and ability to interact, with the program.
It has always seemed to me, that it should be possible, with a sufficiently clever multi-threaded approach, to create a game engine where I could, for example, keep chatting with other players while the level/zone/map that I'm transitioning to is being loaded.
Or maybe I really want to just abort the level load and quit the game, because something important in Real Life has just started occuring and I want to just kill the game and move on. With most games, you have to wait until it is done loading before you can then quit out of the game.
In other words, even ignoring performance benefits for a moment, if a game engine is correctly multi-threaded, I could continue to have 'command and control', and chat, functionality while the game engine, in another thread, is loading models and textures.
Today's CPUs are, in the final analysis, little different than the 386 launched in 1985. Notable exceptions are in details like feature size and operating frequency. Other significant differences are in the pipelining logic, crufted on instruction sets (mmx anyone?) that are rarely called into action, cache and pinouts.
Now, take a step back and imagine what a classic 386 would look like on a.09 micron process... consider that the 386 had 275,000 transistors- compared to the P4s 42 million. You could fit around 150 386s in the space (on the die) of a single P4.
Now, of course there are many advances to consider over the 386, but fundamentally, that processor logic is capable of handling 99% of 32 bit computing tasks. They may have done so slowly, but there you are.
My thinking is, they could use some of this old logic, buff it up a little to accomodate some modern techniques and carve it all into a single die. Imagine a CPU with 64 simple processors, 4Mb of cache and some controlling logic running at 3-5 Ghz. All this in the space of and at the (manufacturing) cost of a single P4.
This chip could be used in clusters like nobody's business. An array of 128 of these processors could simultaneously handle 8,192 active threads.
What use would it be? Off the top of my head, this would be perfect for real-time monitoring, transaction processing, switching and so forth. There would also be serious advantages in the desktop space as compilers and kernels were built to adapt to the new distribution of resources. Image processing could be handled using the same techniques as SLI cards use to split the tasks up over two or more video cards, and any other large body of data could be simlarly broken up. Compilers would be designed to break a program up not into a paltry 2 or 3 threads, but into dozens. Speed and responsiveness would skyrocket, while fab costs and board speeds remained stable.
This might be the logical outcome of the current drift towards multiple CPUs per die, and it could also unite and surpass the schools of CISC vs RISC, as strategies from both would benefit the endeavor.
SMT is only needed if your execution units are having trouble remaining filled up, which was the problem with the NetBurst architecture due to the huge hits that it takes with a branch mis-prediction penalty. When a mis-predict happens the execution unit has to sit idling away and wait for the proper info to go be re-fetched. With SMT, the unit simply switches over to one of the other threads waiting in the wings which keeps the processor doing useful work instead of wasting cycles. This is why the software has to be re-written to take advantage of it so that the processor knows which threads to give priority to.
Intel stuck SMT into the Pentium in order to balance out the some of the negative effects the go hand-in-hand with a processor that has a LONG pipeline. AMD has a much shorter pipeline (especially when compared to the new Prescott) and therefore they don't suffer much of a penalty when a mis-predict happens. Also, if I remember correctly the Athlon was already known being extremely efficient in terms of resource allocation within the processor since AMD can't afford to just dump tons of extra cache onto the chip.
Both of these things taken together means that using up extra real estate on the die of the Athlon in order to get SMT isn't really worth it in terms of the performance it would bring. Even on the Pentium the benefits aren't all that hot and it's only in specific types of code that you see any impresive speed gains.
There's a bunch of interesting information about AMD's dual core offerings over at AnandTech. Very insightful read.
From the article. "If dual core Opterons do indeed have two memory controllers, the pincount of dual core Opterons will go up significantly - it will also make them incompatible with current sockets. AMD is all about maintaining socket compatibility so it is quite possible that they could only leave half of the memory controllers enabled, in order to offer Socket-940 dual core Opterons. AMD isn't being very specific in terms of implementation details, but these are just some of the options."
When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
A Newbie to Linux is not going to have much fun installing the Ubuntu Warty 4.1 release, unless they just let it "do it's own thing" which will more than likely end up destroying all the data they have on thier hard drive, namely, windows.
Perhaps a "newbie to Debian" would be a more accurate description.
I tried it recently and as a slackware 'fancier' I must admit it didn't suit me. In fact, I've never been able to get used to the idiosyncracies of Debain based distributions, even though it's supposedly so easy.
I installed and am giving it the benefit of the dought - who knows, perhaps I'll become a convert and learn to love the Debian way as much as I like Slackware !
But Ubuntu a newbies distro ? - wow, maybe the LiveCD, but the i386 I tried is anything but !
Slashdot Mirror
Come on people, get the terminology right. Ghosting and motion blur are not the same thing!
Ghosting is when you get a faint duplicate of the entire on-screen image, slightly offset from what it should be. I don't think this can even occur on LCDs, I think it is a CRT-only problem, but if you use crappy analogue VGA cables, then who knows?
Motion blur is what you thing ghosting is. It is caused by poor refresh times, more specifically it is caused the amount of time it takes for a pixel to become unlit, or "switch off". So LCD screens that have a poor response time often show a trail after a moving object that looks like a ghost of the object.
Understandable that you could get the two confused, but still wrong.
We don't want to provide a version of XP without Media Player to the EU. That would be catastrophic to our business.
However Thailand can have this nice stripped down version of XP.
And this doesn't even take distribution of wealth into account. According to the above mentioned source 25% of Brazil's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
So you have a small upper class, a small middle class, a huge blue collar working class (with many people out of work) and a lot of people unaccounted for.
If you're living on $741 a month, do you really spend $36 on a license you essentially don't need (since there's no enforcement in Brazil). Also, consider that those $36 are 20% of your monthly income (not of your monthly disposable income).
I don't really get who the folks at Microsoft think their target audience is. The upper class can afford XP Pro/Home licenses. They've either already purchased those (probably OEM licenses) or simply don't care. Anyone outside that demographic just won't be able to afford a Starter license, even if they wanted to.
If someone doesn't have the money for a nice computer with a legit copy of WinXP Pro and all the other goodies, they probably don't have the money to run their own home LAN or the RAM/CPU power to run lots of demanding apps at once. I don't see how this is a bad idea. Sure, it's MS being manipulative, but look at it this way - less features means less security holes!
Well, hopefully it does...
Why would anyone want to pay 36 USD for an operating system which isn't capable of networking and multitasking past 3 programs?
Why impose stuff on people just because they don't have enough cash to pay for a retail Windows XP?
Please... someone give them a proper OS for free.
NASA has a good record of recovering after a tragedy.
If you take the Apollo program as an example, the very first Apollo mission was a disaster with three astronauts killed. And yet after that, the Apollo missions were great successes (although Apollo 13 was a close call, of course).
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with a faulty mirror, but this was fixed and Hubble's become a great success, too.
This program will probably go the same way.
What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.
Despite the fact that there are many extremely smart and talented people at NASA, it, like every bureaucracy, has become an entrenched special interest, more concerned with preserving its budget than in actually moving the cause of space flight forward. The Space Shuttle, no matter how many times it has been retrofitted, is still 1970s technology. It's hideously expensive to launch and requires a vast support army to operate. But that vast support army is precisely why it exists. The space shuttle exists to serve the International Space Station. The International Space Station exists to be serviced by the space shuttle. Both provide lots of aerospace industry jobs and this is, in fact, their primary function. Turf and caution have become the watchwords at the highest echelons of NASA, who are more concerned with protecting their bureaucratic empire than moving the exploration and colonization of space forward. The shuttle monopoly has strangled the development of alternative launch vehicles, something the X Prize has only partially offset. A lot of people had predicted we'd not only have launched a manned mission to Mars by now, but set up a colony. See any sign of that?
Until there's a serious shakeup among the upper echelons of NASA bureaucrats, expect for the U.S. manned space program to creep along rather than soaring.
I thought they were retiring the shuttle program? Personally I am to the point where these shuttle flights are a big waste of money "if" they are not doing anything innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts.
Having two non-identical CPUs in the same package, or in the same machine, isn't that useful. Typically, the "wierd" ones sit idle unless whatever application that specifically uses them is running. The operating system usually has no idea what to do with the "wierd" processor, so it gets managed as a peripheral, which doesn't work very well.
There were some wierd Mac variations in the 1980s with a second CPU on a plug-in board. They could run Photoshop faster, but otherwise were useless.
There are really only two multi-CPU architectures that are generally useful: shared-memory symmetrical multiprocessors, and networked clusters with no shared memory. Many other architectures have been tried - partially shared memory machines, shared-memory machines where some CPUs lacked some features like floating point, hypercubes, single-instruction-multiple-datastream machines, and dataflow processors. None has achieved lasting success.
About the only unusual architecture ever sold in volume is the Playstation 2, with two vector processors. Even there, the vector processors are mostly used as a GPU. (Although one major game physics engine actually runs in the PS2 vector processors, an impressive achievement.)
Programming for wierd architectures is hard, requires much tool development, and results in programs tied to specific hardware. So it doesn't happen much. That's why the wierd architectures fail. They're never that much faster, and by the time the software works, the hardware market is somewhere else.
I believe that we're going to see a performance plateau with processors and raw CPU power for the next 5 years or so.
The only way CPU manufacturers are going to get more *OPS in the future is with many cores, and that's going to require either slower or the same kind of speeds (GHz-wise) as things are today. To get programs to run faster under these circumstances you need some kind of explicitly parallel programming.
We haven't seen the right level of parallelism yet, IMHO. Unix started out with process-level parallelism, but it looks like thread-level paralellism has beaten it, even though it is much more prone to programmer errors.
On the other end of the scale, EPIC architectures like Itanium haven't been able to outcompete older architectures like x86 because the explicitly parallel can be made implicit with clever run-time analysis of code. Intel (and, of course, AMD) are their own worst enemy on the Itanium front. All the CPU h/w prediction etc. removes the benefit of the clever compiler needed for EPIC.
Maybe some kind of middle ground can be reached between the two. Itanium instructions work in triples, and you can effectively view the instruction set as programming three processors working in parallel but with the same register set. This is close (but not quite the same) to what's going to be required to efficiently program multi-core CPUs, beyond simple SMP-style thread-level parallelism. Maybe we need some kind of language which has its concurrency built in (something sort of akin to Concurrent Pascal, but much more up to date), or has no data to share and can be decomposed and analyzed with complete information via lambda calculus. I'm thinking of the functional languages, like ML (consider F# than MS Research is working on), or Haskell.
With a functional language, different cores can work on different branches of the overall graph, and resolve them independentantly, before they're tied together later on.
It's hard to see the kind of mindset changes required for this kind of thinking in software development happening very quickly, though.
We'll see. Interesting times.
I find this interesting, every machine Apple sells except at the definite low end is dual CPU SMP now, and it's been this way for awhile. Now Intel/AMD seem to be realizing "oh yeah, dual cpus, maybe that's something we should start targeting for the mass market instead of just the high end" (though AMD seems to be pretty comfy with the idea already). I wonder why Apple doesn't seem interested in dual cores though. Intel/AMD seem to be treating multicore tech as their way of getting SMP out of the power-user range, Apple doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with it even though POWER has had multicore ability for a really long time. What's up with this, is there something I'm missing?
I would like to see a more multi-threaded approach to game programming in general, and not all the benefits would necessarily be about performance.
One thing that has bugged me a long time about a lot of games (this has particular relevence to multi-player games, but also single player games to some extent) is the 'game loading' screen. Or rather, the fact that during the 'loading' screen I lose all control of, and ability to interact, with the program.
It has always seemed to me, that it should be possible, with a sufficiently clever multi-threaded approach, to create a game engine where I could, for example, keep chatting with other players while the level/zone/map that I'm transitioning to is being loaded.
Or maybe I really want to just abort the level load and quit the game, because something important in Real Life has just started occuring and I want to just kill the game and move on. With most games, you have to wait until it is done loading before you can then quit out of the game.
In other words, even ignoring performance benefits for a moment, if a game engine is correctly multi-threaded, I could continue to have 'command and control', and chat, functionality while the game engine, in another thread, is loading models and textures.
Today's CPUs are, in the final analysis, little different than the 386 launched in 1985. Notable exceptions are in details like feature size and operating frequency. Other significant differences are in the pipelining logic, crufted on instruction sets (mmx anyone?) that are rarely called into action, cache and pinouts.
.09 micron process... consider that the 386 had 275,000 transistors- compared to the P4s 42 million. You could fit around 150 386s in the space (on the die) of a single P4.
Now, take a step back and imagine what a classic 386 would look like on a
Now, of course there are many advances to consider over the 386, but fundamentally, that processor logic is capable of handling 99% of 32 bit computing tasks. They may have done so slowly, but there you are.
My thinking is, they could use some of this old logic, buff it up a little to accomodate some modern techniques and carve it all into a single die. Imagine a CPU with 64 simple processors, 4Mb of cache and some controlling logic running at 3-5 Ghz. All this in the space of and at the (manufacturing) cost of a single P4.
This chip could be used in clusters like nobody's business. An array of 128 of these processors could simultaneously handle 8,192 active threads.
What use would it be? Off the top of my head, this would be perfect for real-time monitoring, transaction processing, switching and so forth. There would also be serious advantages in the desktop space as compilers and kernels were built to adapt to the new distribution of resources. Image processing could be handled using the same techniques as SLI cards use to split the tasks up over two or more video cards, and any other large body of data could be simlarly broken up. Compilers would be designed to break a program up not into a paltry 2 or 3 threads, but into dozens. Speed and responsiveness would skyrocket, while fab costs and board speeds remained stable.
This might be the logical outcome of the current drift towards multiple CPUs per die, and it could also unite and surpass the schools of CISC vs RISC, as strategies from both would benefit the endeavor.
I ran dual P3s for a while last year. While I loved the responsiveness of the system, I hated the lack of programs avalible to take advantage of SMP.
How is this year going to be different?
Even if you *could* get SMP aware versions of your software, would it be worth it? Lots of problems are harder to solve when you add SMP to the mix.
Gamers will be put off by the fact that games can't take advantage of SMP.
Home users will be put off by the fact that their $500 Dell surfs the world-wide e-mail just fine.
Business user may take advantage of this in servers, but there's only so much cooling and power you can provide to a 1-U server.
So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?
SMT is only needed if your execution units are having trouble remaining filled up, which was the problem with the NetBurst architecture due to the huge hits that it takes with a branch mis-prediction penalty. When a mis-predict happens the execution unit has to sit idling away and wait for the proper info to go be re-fetched. With SMT, the unit simply switches over to one of the other threads waiting in the wings which keeps the processor doing useful work instead of wasting cycles. This is why the software has to be re-written to take advantage of it so that the processor knows which threads to give priority to.
Intel stuck SMT into the Pentium in order to balance out the some of the negative effects the go hand-in-hand with a processor that has a LONG pipeline. AMD has a much shorter pipeline (especially when compared to the new Prescott) and therefore they don't suffer much of a penalty when a mis-predict happens. Also, if I remember correctly the Athlon was already known being extremely efficient in terms of resource allocation within the processor since AMD can't afford to just dump tons of extra cache onto the chip.
Both of these things taken together means that using up extra real estate on the die of the Athlon in order to get SMT isn't really worth it in terms of the performance it would bring. Even on the Pentium the benefits aren't all that hot and it's only in specific types of code that you see any impresive speed gains.
Maybe I should invest in the heatsink business. I see a huge future in it thanks to Intel and AMD's dual core plans...
There's a bunch of interesting information about AMD's dual core offerings over at AnandTech. Very insightful read.
From the article. "If dual core Opterons do indeed have two memory controllers, the pincount of dual core Opterons will go up significantly - it will also make them incompatible with current sockets. AMD is all about maintaining socket compatibility so it is quite possible that they could only leave half of the memory controllers enabled, in order to offer Socket-940 dual core Opterons. AMD isn't being very specific in terms of implementation details, but these are just some of the options."
I want to see dual-core Pentium-Ms.
At the rate that power consumption and heat dissipation are increasing on these chips, I consider Pentium-Ms to be the only processor worth using.
When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
A Newbie to Linux is not going to have much fun installing the Ubuntu Warty 4.1 release, unless they just let it "do it's own thing" which will more than likely end up destroying all the data they have on thier hard drive, namely, windows.
Perhaps a "newbie to Debian" would be a more accurate description.
I tried it recently and as a slackware 'fancier' I must admit it didn't suit me. In fact, I've never been able to get used to the idiosyncracies of Debain based distributions, even though it's supposedly so easy.
I installed and am giving it the benefit of the dought - who knows, perhaps I'll become a convert and learn to love the Debian way as much as I like Slackware !
But Ubuntu a newbies distro ? - wow, maybe the LiveCD, but the i386 I tried is anything but !