MacCoaster
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
JustAGuy: Okay, I modified that for 5000 and compiled on my Athlon-Tbird. Runs in about one second on average.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:06 PM
I was just about to buy PluralEyes. Thus far, FCP X seems to be OK, whether it's a real upgrade, iMovie or whatever. 64-bit, editing while ingesting...that's kool. Just gotta wait for more info.
diamornte
Apr 13, 04:03 AM
Most people here, will tinker with FCP and never actually make feature films or shows. You all have an opinion, but I think that people that actually do this for a living will be very happy with the results.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 11:59 AM
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality?
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
iMattcotv
Apr 9, 09:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
roland.g
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
That's what I thought when I saw that they weren't specific about WiFi ... simply calling it "802.11 wireless networking" instead of specifically stating it was "802.11 A/B/G".
but that brings up the point of what's sending to it. Doesn't matter that it has new tech to recieve at higher bandwidth if the computer streaming to it only sends out at 802.11g.
but that brings up the point of what's sending to it. Doesn't matter that it has new tech to recieve at higher bandwidth if the computer streaming to it only sends out at 802.11g.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:49 PM
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:58 PM
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
jvegas
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
Medium hair is easy to manage
long hair updos easy.
Prom Hairstyles For Long Hair
easy prom updos for long hair.
Easy updo hairstyles. long
If you have long hair,
easy prom updos for long hair.
Bridal Hair Styles For Long
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
balamw
Apr 7, 06:12 AM
I have been working with Msdos/Windows PCs for 20 years and in the past 5 years also with linux (mainly for work, admin web servers by command line). So i guess it's going to be an step learning curve at first, but it has me excited, not worried at all.
You're already multi-OS so the transition will be less difficult for you that someone who has never had to use a different OS.
Most if not all the software i use daily have Mac versions, so i shouldn't have issues with that (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome, Thunderbird, Putty, Ultraedit, Filezilla, Trillian, MSOffice, ssh client).
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
"Better" is up to you. Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome and Office you should try to go with the Mac versions of those programs.
For email clients it depends how you use T-bird.
There are many text editors that are more Mac-y than UltraEdit, but that doesn't make them better. BBEdit is a popular one and has a free version in TextWrangler.
Adium is a popular chat client like Trillian
CyberDuck is a popular file transfer client like Filezilla.
Putty/ssh is a weird one as there doesn't really seem to be a direct equivalent. ssh works from the command line, but I haven't found something that does what PuTTY does in connection management. There are several terminal emulators beyond xterm though.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Yes, ... but. Mac OS X is BSD and Linux is mostly System V so there can be subtle differences. Some of the commands may be the BSD versions and may not have all the same options as the GNU/Linux versions. Mostly, you can fix that by also installing the GNU versions from MacPorts.
B
You're already multi-OS so the transition will be less difficult for you that someone who has never had to use a different OS.
Most if not all the software i use daily have Mac versions, so i shouldn't have issues with that (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome, Thunderbird, Putty, Ultraedit, Filezilla, Trillian, MSOffice, ssh client).
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
"Better" is up to you. Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome and Office you should try to go with the Mac versions of those programs.
For email clients it depends how you use T-bird.
There are many text editors that are more Mac-y than UltraEdit, but that doesn't make them better. BBEdit is a popular one and has a free version in TextWrangler.
Adium is a popular chat client like Trillian
CyberDuck is a popular file transfer client like Filezilla.
Putty/ssh is a weird one as there doesn't really seem to be a direct equivalent. ssh works from the command line, but I haven't found something that does what PuTTY does in connection management. There are several terminal emulators beyond xterm though.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Yes, ... but. Mac OS X is BSD and Linux is mostly System V so there can be subtle differences. Some of the commands may be the BSD versions and may not have all the same options as the GNU/Linux versions. Mostly, you can fix that by also installing the GNU versions from MacPorts.
B
~Shard~
Oct 31, 05:13 PM
This discussion is rather amusing in a way - "don't buy 4 cores, wait for 8 cores!" etc. - yeah, and in a few months it'll be "don't buy 8 cores, wait for 16 cores!" and then 32 cores, blah blah, ad infinitum... :p ;) :D :cool:
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
tteerts
Sep 29, 09:28 AM
Thanks for the info folks. I would definitely not have picked up on that subtelty otherwise.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:01 PM
So, if they have a serious meltdown situation, the whole site could become so contaminated that no one who wants to live more than a few hours will be able to get anywhere near the other cores to keep the hoses on them? It would seem like one meltdown will take the rest of them with it, in a sort of chain reaction.
They are in real trouble now, can only hope the winds keep things blowing out to sea. I was hoping to get home from work to see things finally under control.... not the exact opposite. :(
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
They are in real trouble now, can only hope the winds keep things blowing out to sea. I was hoping to get home from work to see things finally under control.... not the exact opposite. :(
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Piggie
Apr 28, 02:10 PM
Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
macorama
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
the users at macpredict got the nano and shuffle update dates spot on - shouldn't be too hard to pick the iTV Release Date (http://macpredict.com/events/Apples-iTV-Release-Date) in the lead up to christmas.
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:41 AM
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
goobot
Apr 20, 06:08 PM
did anyone ask anything about hspa+?
megadon
Dec 27, 09:50 PM
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:49 PM
Other than for aeroplanes oil isn't subsidised here in communist Europe - in fact its heavily taxed.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment