ddtlm
Oct 12, 07:52 PM
javajedi:
Sheesh, I have no idea how Java is defeating C... and those scores are still bizzarre. However PCUser did get 8.86 seconds on an Athlon 1533 with the right compiler flags. Looking at that, I wonder if the compiler flags are the cause here. Since this whole thing is essentially sqrt(), I wonder if the newer x86 chips are packing some strange special sqrt() assembly instruction that makes this huge difference. Hmmm. Otherwise I wonder how an Athlon at a little more than twice my clock speed (compared to the Xeon) can post results that are more than 4 times as fast.
Anyway this is it for me, since this is the weekend. I'll look for some x86 fast sqrt function Monday at work (I am pretty sure that such a thing exists, and if so it may be used in this test).
Sheesh, I have no idea how Java is defeating C... and those scores are still bizzarre. However PCUser did get 8.86 seconds on an Athlon 1533 with the right compiler flags. Looking at that, I wonder if the compiler flags are the cause here. Since this whole thing is essentially sqrt(), I wonder if the newer x86 chips are packing some strange special sqrt() assembly instruction that makes this huge difference. Hmmm. Otherwise I wonder how an Athlon at a little more than twice my clock speed (compared to the Xeon) can post results that are more than 4 times as fast.
Anyway this is it for me, since this is the weekend. I'll look for some x86 fast sqrt function Monday at work (I am pretty sure that such a thing exists, and if so it may be used in this test).
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:04 PM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
more...
rdowns
Apr 24, 12:13 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
and money.
And Fear.
and money.
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.
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:19 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
skunk
Apr 24, 07:20 PM
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical.They purport to be the historical record of the exhortations to kill of El himself, much as the Quran.
brent0saurus
Apr 9, 01:21 PM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
Nope, paper. They started off making card games in the 1800s.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
gopher
Oct 9, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Haven't we been over this before?
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
Haven't we been over this before?
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
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.
more...
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.
more...
skunk
Mar 25, 11:14 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
more...
%2520(Ori-DCP)/zzz_Ori.jpg "Black Rose/Tarot - Witch")
OutThere
Mar 13, 12:10 PM
I do feel that nuclear energy has a place in our energy production environment. That said, I regret that the problems in Japan will increase the public anxiety over nuclear power, because it will create opposition to the construction of new, safer, cleaner nuclear plants and place us in a position of having to continue using old nuclear plants which are less efficient and less safe.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
more...
Gelfin
Mar 24, 09:56 PM
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
more...
Sydde
Apr 27, 10:39 AM
The Jesus toast. Verified to look like Jesus or Jeff Daniels.
283096
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
283096
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
more...
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:32 AM
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means.
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means.
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
more...
latergator116
Mar 20, 09:21 PM
I do not want to enter the "debate" about whether or not DRM and copyright laws are "good" or "bad." But for everyone who believes that the creation of this software was a good thing I would like to suggest that you put your efforts into more productive things, like starting a legal defense fund for that poor individual(s) who helped create the PyMusique software.
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
I'd just about be willing to bet that federal law enforcement agents will be knocking on his/her door within the next few weeks. No doubt, if Apple wants to press this issue those individuals could be charged with some violation of the DMCA or laws covering internet commerce . I suppose that they could even be charged in a civil suit for violation of the iTunes Terms Of Service agreement.
Seriously, if it is true that some of these people live in the U.S. and they've used their true identities then they could be headed for real trouble. Get their legal team ready (and, of course, I know you'll all be contributing money for their defense). :)
I doubt Apple would waste their time and go after and sue the people who used this program and broke the iTunes contract. It seems like a relatively trivial matter. (But after looking at their thinksecret lawsuit, I don't know).
more...
LondonCentral
Apr 8, 10:25 PM
Also, the next Apple TV will be...a fully fledged games console in disguise.:cool:
ddtlm
Oct 10, 07:55 PM
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:09 PM
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
more...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
more...
