skunk
Apr 24, 11:16 AM
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria.Among other theories:Destruction
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
UnixMac
Oct 9, 06:08 PM
You are right, If I could get a Thinkpad T31 loaded with A GUI Unix preloaded, I would.
I am not ready to go into uncharted waters yet however....
I am not ready to go into uncharted waters yet however....
Groovey
Aug 30, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
mtbgtr
Nov 12, 09:08 PM
Not sure why anyone would care that an android device would surpass iPhone in 2012 when we will all be dead on December 21, 2012 anyways. :cool:
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
MacRumors
Jul 14, 02:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:57 AM
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:06 PM
I blame the iphone. Its a hog and kills atts network. If it was a diff phone this wount be happening. Apple needs to make it work with the network better.
Not sure what's going on with AT&T. I've carried another (not an iPhone) phone around with me for 2 days. My 3GS iPhone consistently has either no bars or fluctuating low bars while the other AT&T phone gets strong signals in the same area. The other phone does not access the 3G network though. AT&T has been no help.. Apple suggested that I replace my sim card so I'll see if that helps with signal strength and dropped calls.
Not sure what's going on with AT&T. I've carried another (not an iPhone) phone around with me for 2 days. My 3GS iPhone consistently has either no bars or fluctuating low bars while the other AT&T phone gets strong signals in the same area. The other phone does not access the 3G network though. AT&T has been no help.. Apple suggested that I replace my sim card so I'll see if that helps with signal strength and dropped calls.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:48 PM
ddtlm,
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
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.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
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.
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
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.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
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.
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:17 AM
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.Well, since they started selling multi-processor PowerMacs, they've been quite good about it. Final Cut Pro, Motion, iTunes, and iMovie all use multiple-processors, as does anything that uses CoreAudio. I don't know about Aperture, but I'd bet it uses multithreading/multiprocessing extensively. Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X. I don't know about other Apple apps such as Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, and iWeb, but there's probably a limited amount of things they can efficiently multithread in those apps due to the nature of work being done.
Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
Plus the pineal gland secretes
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:50 AM
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
�algiris
May 2, 09:28 AM
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
When things a blown out of proportions.
When things a blown out of proportions.
Full of Win
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 09:19 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=AidenShaw;2994604]For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...