thejadedmonkey
Mar 11, 02:27 AM
CNN just keeps showing the footage of that oil refinery that's burning... the one tank looks HUGE. Oh man... it's bad. =(
And the water just rolling across the fields.
And the water just rolling across the fields.
kdarling
Oct 16, 07:42 AM
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
cgc
Jul 11, 10:39 PM
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:19 PM
colorful chart
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
Senbei
Jul 13, 09:54 AM
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
macenforcer
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
Caliber26
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:18 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
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.
;)
Dagless
Mar 15, 09:58 AM
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
I've been observing this thread, and slightly educated from it too (thanks nuclear people!). But I had to jump in here - is this a joke? If it is you're taking it too far.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
I've been observing this thread, and slightly educated from it too (thanks nuclear people!). But I had to jump in here - is this a joke? If it is you're taking it too far.
wkhahn
Sep 20, 10:34 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll buy a new iPod/computer every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. They are locked to the box and once its full you can't rent anything else without returning something. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
FreeState
Mar 27, 10:09 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
hush
Sep 20, 08:41 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Cheers,
Cheers,
mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
Abulia
Sep 29, 11:03 AM
No.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 05:31 PM
JustAGuy:
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
Ludeman
Sep 22, 11:09 AM
think they've sold it to me! currently got a g4 tower which does'nt play hidef to well and was thinking about either upgrading���, or getting a mini���. but now they've announced iTV(�200bargin!!!). soon i will hopefully be able serve my iTV all the media off my terrabyte hd plus the hundreds of dvd's. thanks to the ever useful "toppy"! and play it all when i want on my big hidef lcd tv and great surrond sound hi-fi in the living room thanks to iTV! personally i think apple are on to a winner, why is everbody wanting more?
vincenz
Apr 16, 12:52 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 11:28 PM
But the octo-core for sure will be faster than the quad G5 for non universal Adobe CS2 apps.
Unfortunately it won't be... Adobe's software in its current CS2 form isn't multithreaded and the only way you're going to get the use of multiple cores is running multiple programs at the same time. So when it comes to running Photoshop, a 3GHz quad-core will run it faster than a 2.66GHz 8-core. Hopefully we'll see some multithreaded enhancements with the CS3 update. Otherwise, buying a Mac Pro for Adobe's software is somewhat overkill unless you have specialized PS filters that are multithreaded to use the multiple CPU cores. For now the hardware has dramatically out-paced the software side of the industry and so we wait... Outside of video encoding apps, 3D rendering, visualization and scientific computing apps, most everything else out there is not multithreaded (which means multi-core ignorant). Know your software before you plunk down your money.
For me, I'm a 3D rendering kinda guy so the 8-core Mac Pro can't get here fast enough. Although, I just bought an MBP about 3 weeks ago since I needed one and my wife needed a Macbook, but I handed that down to her and ordered me a C2D MBP yesterday... And I bought another Maya license, so the budget is a little thin right now.
Unfortunately it won't be... Adobe's software in its current CS2 form isn't multithreaded and the only way you're going to get the use of multiple cores is running multiple programs at the same time. So when it comes to running Photoshop, a 3GHz quad-core will run it faster than a 2.66GHz 8-core. Hopefully we'll see some multithreaded enhancements with the CS3 update. Otherwise, buying a Mac Pro for Adobe's software is somewhat overkill unless you have specialized PS filters that are multithreaded to use the multiple CPU cores. For now the hardware has dramatically out-paced the software side of the industry and so we wait... Outside of video encoding apps, 3D rendering, visualization and scientific computing apps, most everything else out there is not multithreaded (which means multi-core ignorant). Know your software before you plunk down your money.
For me, I'm a 3D rendering kinda guy so the 8-core Mac Pro can't get here fast enough. Although, I just bought an MBP about 3 weeks ago since I needed one and my wife needed a Macbook, but I handed that down to her and ordered me a C2D MBP yesterday... And I bought another Maya license, so the budget is a little thin right now.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
And I can't think of a better way to get a whole bunch of children raped by 'chaste' Catholic priests.
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment