ehoui
Apr 27, 06:47 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
It's no more "fun" than arguing that one knows that God exists or does not.
w_parietti22
Jul 11, 10:19 PM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:55 PM
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
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.
rickdollar
Apr 13, 12:57 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
retroneo
Oct 8, 12:34 AM
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google.
Over here, they brand the Samsung and HTC phones as Google powered with the Google logo, and don't mention Android.
Google has a comprehensive suite of services that no-one else can match as yet and I don't see Apple starting a 10 year effort to build up a similar suite of services or collection of information.
Apple IMO needs to maintain a good relationship with Google.
Bing/Microsoft Live and Yahoo are still not up to the standard of Google's services. MobileMe and iWork.com cover such a tiny fraction of Googles services and are still very incomplete for the areas they do cover.
Over here, they brand the Samsung and HTC phones as Google powered with the Google logo, and don't mention Android.
Google has a comprehensive suite of services that no-one else can match as yet and I don't see Apple starting a 10 year effort to build up a similar suite of services or collection of information.
Apple IMO needs to maintain a good relationship with Google.
Bing/Microsoft Live and Yahoo are still not up to the standard of Google's services. MobileMe and iWork.com cover such a tiny fraction of Googles services and are still very incomplete for the areas they do cover.
Peace
Sep 20, 06:09 PM
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
iAlan
Mar 11, 09:36 AM
I was at work when the quake hit. Building swayed (its a 3 year old building) more than anything I've experienced in my 10+ years in Tokyo. And the duration of the quake is what surprised (and unnerved me) the most as most are short - and the epicenter was 350K away from Tokyo.
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Hastings101
Apr 5, 08:29 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
MacFly123
Mar 18, 01:46 PM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
AMEN!
Do I think they are justified in classifying what data we use for what when we are on a plan that is supposed to be UNLIMITED? Not really! But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
Hopefully one day soon we will all just have 1 super fast LTE data plan that will tether to all of our devices and our cars at a reasonable price!
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
AMEN!
Do I think they are justified in classifying what data we use for what when we are on a plan that is supposed to be UNLIMITED? Not really! But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
Hopefully one day soon we will all just have 1 super fast LTE data plan that will tether to all of our devices and our cars at a reasonable price!
Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 02:16 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
There used to be some software to directly copy from CD to CDR, and this was very common in the days before people had MP3 players... but I can't imagine many people doing this anymore, and I don't know of any software to do this with DVDs.
It would be nice if you play a game that requires a CD in and won't permit you to use a disc image on the hard drive.
There used to be some software to directly copy from CD to CDR, and this was very common in the days before people had MP3 players... but I can't imagine many people doing this anymore, and I don't know of any software to do this with DVDs.
It would be nice if you play a game that requires a CD in and won't permit you to use a disc image on the hard drive.
bommai
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
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.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
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.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 12:59 PM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
rxse7en
Oct 11, 02:30 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00
B
B
![wallpaper dark. [Wallpaper] Dark Shelves](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tLV1OrP8gh4QYzlvt_vkSPyRGDmnxQ8TyiwlnHZn4XbGdjSfqDuD8HqjomQDKou7Nsfpc64ukknSpLn9Brc3nMTBLYvMQMS7kLfzXkZ5TlgoKNDXedyasLlmgtWq5_F_SEFGG7=s0-d "[Wallpaper] Dark Shelves")
fewture
Jul 12, 01:34 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:42 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
javajedi
Oct 11, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:09 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
Silencio
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
Squire
Sep 20, 08:56 AM
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
uzombie
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
Since the 3.0ghz Woodcrest is now about $875 (street), I am betting it will drop another $100 when the Clovertown 4 cores are released (Those prices are for 1000 lot each, so resellers will undoubtedly charge more). Until the Woodcrest 3.0Ghz duals hit below the $450 mark, it makes more $ense to get the CPUs you need, now. (that is in the MacPro, not as self-upgrades)
It looks like you are better off buying the mac you want, than wait for CPU prices to drop enough to build on-the-cheap (getting low-end 2.0ghz, then upgrading to X1900 and dual Clovertown 2.66 4-cores). By the time the price on those CPUs is reasonable, Apple may have a new Pro and bus. And intel wil have more cores than we need. Or atleast, the hardware is far ahead of the software written to fully utilize the cores.
We welcome the bloatware overloards! ;)
It looks like you are better off buying the mac you want, than wait for CPU prices to drop enough to build on-the-cheap (getting low-end 2.0ghz, then upgrading to X1900 and dual Clovertown 2.66 4-cores). By the time the price on those CPUs is reasonable, Apple may have a new Pro and bus. And intel wil have more cores than we need. Or atleast, the hardware is far ahead of the software written to fully utilize the cores.
We welcome the bloatware overloards! ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment