OllyW
Mar 13, 07:26 AM
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
http://boingboing.net/img/Natori%20Yagawahama%20Before-After.JPG
http://boingboing.net/img/Natori%20Yagawahama%20Before-After.JPG
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 12:32 PM
You misspeak and mischaracterize.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican correct? So far as I know, the Vatican is the leadership hierarchy for the Catholic Church. Please correct me if that's not right.
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
I can't and don't speak for that member. I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
takao
Mar 13, 10:19 AM
Well, this is still playing out.
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:32 AM
God Bless everyone there. I am watching this live, and saw the surge just overrunning everything inland, including cars on the highway that couldn't move out of the way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:19 AM
If the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay, then they shouldn't project a positive message about being straight. No more kissing on TV, film, etc. Ban all public displays of affection and don't say a word about issues that someone might take 'offence' to. Yeah...that sounds like a great world. I hope you go there someday.
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:31 AM
sounds like someone on here thinks he's a lawya! Must have stayed in a holiday in last night.
Moyank24
Mar 11, 02:31 AM
As of 0730 GMT, Philippines is now under alert level 2. Its now 0830 GMT. Bracing for tsunami in the next hour.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ljohnson72
Jan 28, 10:59 PM
Because Android isn't an OS that is on multiple devices on multiple carriers. :rolleyes:
pdjudd
Oct 8, 11:30 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 12:21 AM
The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
idea time only. Wind produces the most power during the night (not during peak load times) and again I would not want the noise from the wind turbines all over hte place.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD
Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.
Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.
idea time only. Wind produces the most power during the night (not during peak load times) and again I would not want the noise from the wind turbines all over hte place.
snoopy
Oct 11, 12:01 PM
Hate to drop in late like this, but the G3 had the same FPU as the 603, not the better one in the 604. When Motorola built the G4, they did not upgrade the FPU, but added AltiVec. This is what I understand. So, yes, double precision floating point does run poorly, with that old 603 FPU.
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
alex_ant
Oct 8, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
ddtlm
Oct 13, 06:30 PM
javajedi:
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Good to see the topic lives on. I thought about doing it yesterday but couldn't decide how I wanted to. I think it should be nonrecursive but honestly I haven't even decided how it can be reasonably done.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
JIT compilers are a mystery to me. I might add that they do exist at least a little for other languages too, read something somewhere about HP using them on their mega-servers for compiled apps. Can't remember details but it was said to help.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 08:08 PM
Apple are all about building integration and eco systems. Their visions of the future of consumer electronics... or post PC devices is iOS. If a family of five buys into that ecosystem they already have iPhone's, they already have iPads, they already have iPods and if they don't... they're probably going to buy one.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
If you approach it with a closed mind you won't understand it. You clearly don't which is why you've reeled off the predictable reply about current cost/usage.
Sorry I have such a small brain.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
God of Biscuits
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
Cape Cod Rick
Jul 7, 06:00 AM
I love my new IPhone 4. However, I am dropping many more calls with the IPhone 4 than I did with IPhone 3G!! Yesterday, my phone dropped 3 calls- even when I was holding the phone with only two fingers and away from the bottom!!
iRockMan1
Apr 9, 03:38 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwiiI hope you're joking. Nintendo's the strongest it's ever been and is probably the most innovative company in the gaming industry. They'll never go out of business or need to be bought out as long as they keep up their innovation and have must-have franchises such as Mario and Zelda.
H. Flower
Apr 13, 12:01 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
