brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 10:52 PM
If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?.
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
HiRez
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :DYou're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:12 AM
The deal with religious people is founded in human nature; it's the need to have faith in something bigger than oneself. For some reason, the Church of Scientology comes to my mind when I'm writing this. Oh yes, here is my question: how many religions are founded on somebody's desire to exploit that need?
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:51 AM
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 08:48 PM
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
TEG
Aug 29, 12:26 PM
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
TEG
Seriously.
TEG
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 04:52 PM
such that women are more likely to forget things.
So, woman are addle-minded?
I wouldn't wonder, they are kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, all in the service of Allah. And proper schooling is only of-late, and just in certain 'forward' Islamic countries.
I declined to read any further.
So, woman are addle-minded?
I wouldn't wonder, they are kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, all in the service of Allah. And proper schooling is only of-late, and just in certain 'forward' Islamic countries.
I declined to read any further.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 04:59 AM
So if the NYT is telling the truth - this now officially a concern in my eyes.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:07 AM
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
No, it sounds like a server. Nicely packed PCs haven't had two sockets for a few years now.
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC??
It's a server/workstation chip and what you have is a workstation. If it has two sockets with four cores each, let alone 24 gig of memory, it is *not* a desktop PC.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:29 PM
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
[quote]
If you've been reading, when applied correctly, it only applies to Muslims
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
Fundamentalists who have taken an extreme point of view. Are you saying that Islam is not allowed any extremists? All religions have then. But not Muslims are extremists.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
I could see this coming. We don't all live in the US. Reported rates go down, but it also works psychologically.
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
[quote]
If you've been reading, when applied correctly, it only applies to Muslims
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
Fundamentalists who have taken an extreme point of view. Are you saying that Islam is not allowed any extremists? All religions have then. But not Muslims are extremists.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
I could see this coming. We don't all live in the US. Reported rates go down, but it also works psychologically.
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
Tarzanman
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
elbirth
Oct 21, 10:44 PM
Zactly. Waiting for prices to change is probably an act of futility other than waiting for an 8-core refurb. The 3GHz Woody Mac Pro Refurb is $3299 which would compare to the 2.33GHz Clovertown. So there isn't going to be a lot of "savings" waiting for the refurbs which probably won't show up until late January at the soonest. Can you afford to be without all that power in the meantime? I can't wait.
Well, I'm waiting until around January to buy a new 8-core, not a refurb. I'm just seeing if I could perhaps save a couple bucks on the RAM because every little bit would help. I've been planning for a couple months now to wait until Macworld SF in January because initially I assumed that would be when the 8-core systems would be out. However, if they're out this year, even better- if any big issues pop up hopefully they can have them worked out. In that case I *may* get a refurb if they have them that soon- otherwise I'm just saving my money and had planned it out to have what I think should be enough (or close) by mid-January.
Luckily I can afford to wait (and my bank account thanks me for doing so). While I'm not in need of that kind of processing power, I believe I could definitely put it to use. My 2GHz MacBook Pro is my primary machine right now and I regularly get it to the point where it's starting to crawl and becomes painfully slow at times.
Well, I'm waiting until around January to buy a new 8-core, not a refurb. I'm just seeing if I could perhaps save a couple bucks on the RAM because every little bit would help. I've been planning for a couple months now to wait until Macworld SF in January because initially I assumed that would be when the 8-core systems would be out. However, if they're out this year, even better- if any big issues pop up hopefully they can have them worked out. In that case I *may* get a refurb if they have them that soon- otherwise I'm just saving my money and had planned it out to have what I think should be enough (or close) by mid-January.
Luckily I can afford to wait (and my bank account thanks me for doing so). While I'm not in need of that kind of processing power, I believe I could definitely put it to use. My 2GHz MacBook Pro is my primary machine right now and I regularly get it to the point where it's starting to crawl and becomes painfully slow at times.
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:20 PM
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?
blue22
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:11 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
And the difference is that the heterosexual couple can get married, while the homosexual couple can't. And that is an inequality that your church has helped to create.
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
SPUY767
Sep 26, 10:40 AM
Pardon Me But Would You Please Track Down The Link To That Card And IM Me and post it here? I need it NOW! Thanks.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships. :D
This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.
This is not the one I use but the same in concept. Gigayte i-RAM (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480) This item uses PCI and not PCIe.
The one that I use doesn't work with the Macintosh, but apparently, the PCIe/SATAII version of the one that Eld is talking about will as mine uses no SATA interface for data transfer.
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
EricNau
Sep 20, 08:28 PM
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
Post Title → 5 dollar bill back
