Michaelgtrusa
Mar 13, 12:47 PM
More people have died in hydroelectric or coal generated power production. Nuclear is relatively safe and clean.
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
...but if a coal plant blows it's over soon, if a nuke plant blows it's over in 250 thousand years.
solafide
Sep 12, 07:48 PM
I think this will be a great first step for Apple. Long term, I'd like to be able archive all my DVDs and play them through iTunes, just as I have done with my CDs. In the mid to long term, this would mean that Apple would have to work out a deal with a DRM solution with the content owners that would allow for a DVD (obviously this would not work with my currently owned DVDs) to be stored on a computer - authenticating back to the content owner's server, for example.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Problem you run into is those other groups are not targeted for endless bully as a group. Take a fat kid. A fat kid being bullied is going be hit or miss. I can not promise you that the fact kid will be bullies but I can promise you a LGBT is going to be bullied. On top of that the public at large does not target fat people for being harrassed but they do target the LGBT. Hence no real way for a small group to orginzed or the groups originations to get the message out.
My fear and hell already seeing it happening is bulling in it self is not being targeted to try to shut down and protect kids from it but instead you are finding them focusing really hard on protecting LGBT from harrassement in both legal terms and school rules. Never minding the others who get targeted. If you are not being pick on for LGBT reasons the school policies do not offer you much protection. That is the reality.
I have a problem with bulling in general as I was pushed to my limits growing up. I fear that it will get viewed as a LGBT issue only and as such only try to be stop from that angle and that can not be allowed to happen.
Now I will agree LGBT kids have some other larger mental problems they will be suffering with as they will be struggling comes to terms with them being LGBT and chances are a lot higher they will not have support at home on top of being pick on at school so it is a lot of extra crap to be pilled on top of the bulling itself.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 11:47 AM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Did you ever think that their perspective is that of a younger person newer to the industry who never had to pay those ridiculous prices? Sounds like you could take your own advice.
Back on topic:
I'd love to see Shake revitalized in the same way. There is some power lurking beneath the rewrite of FCP that can be spread elsewhere.
Grow some perspective.
Did you ever think that their perspective is that of a younger person newer to the industry who never had to pay those ridiculous prices? Sounds like you could take your own advice.
Back on topic:
I'd love to see Shake revitalized in the same way. There is some power lurking beneath the rewrite of FCP that can be spread elsewhere.
mrwalker
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.
~Shard~
Oct 31, 09:02 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...
I hope you don't have to wait too long... :o
I hope you don't have to wait too long... :o
ACED
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
dmw007
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
The Mac Pros are going to receive Woodcrest processors. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
takao
Mar 15, 08:20 PM
If they really can afford to take them off the grid, then why are they running? Perhaps they are sewlling the enegry to other countries and don't want to lose the revenue? Or maybe the German government is unwilling to remove a domestic power-producing option in favor of fuels they have to import from elsewhere?
An intersting situation.
germany is an electricity exporting country so they were "makin' teh moneys" ;)
some now other infos i have gathered: 2 of those power plants which 'had been shut down' actually have been powered down since more than half a year anyway (as initially planed in the 2002 nuclear law compromise contract) but haven't been started up for the CDU/FDP coaltion plan to prolong their use
2 reactors are already confirmed by the local governments as being shut of for good (Isar1,Neckarwestheim I) and the chances for Brunsb�ttel and Biblis ,which haven't exactly spotless records, are more or less considered also to be 0% unless a miracle happens
Baden-W�rttembergs ministers Stefan Mappus seems to have been moved rather personally: last year he was one of the main supporters of prolonging the running times of the reactors and lobbying for more nuclear power: now he already took one plant off for good and during the speech in the local goverment of BW he showed to be obviously rather moved talking about "many strong personal beliefs shaken" "the question of responsibility of nuclear power ... even for me personally" etc.
it might very well be that this event could be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear power in the CDU. A majority party simply can't support a position which 80+% of all german voters oppose.
edit: a note to add: in germany similar to other countries the local governments of the 'states' are responsible for allowing power suppliers to operate nuclear plants...
in the 2002 nuclear law building new commercial nuclear power plants was forbidden by law ... not that after 1986 building a new plant turned incredible difficult/next to impossible anyway
An intersting situation.
germany is an electricity exporting country so they were "makin' teh moneys" ;)
some now other infos i have gathered: 2 of those power plants which 'had been shut down' actually have been powered down since more than half a year anyway (as initially planed in the 2002 nuclear law compromise contract) but haven't been started up for the CDU/FDP coaltion plan to prolong their use
2 reactors are already confirmed by the local governments as being shut of for good (Isar1,Neckarwestheim I) and the chances for Brunsb�ttel and Biblis ,which haven't exactly spotless records, are more or less considered also to be 0% unless a miracle happens
Baden-W�rttembergs ministers Stefan Mappus seems to have been moved rather personally: last year he was one of the main supporters of prolonging the running times of the reactors and lobbying for more nuclear power: now he already took one plant off for good and during the speech in the local goverment of BW he showed to be obviously rather moved talking about "many strong personal beliefs shaken" "the question of responsibility of nuclear power ... even for me personally" etc.
it might very well be that this event could be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear power in the CDU. A majority party simply can't support a position which 80+% of all german voters oppose.
edit: a note to add: in germany similar to other countries the local governments of the 'states' are responsible for allowing power suppliers to operate nuclear plants...
in the 2002 nuclear law building new commercial nuclear power plants was forbidden by law ... not that after 1986 building a new plant turned incredible difficult/next to impossible anyway
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
nacnud
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
This iTV seems like a very interesting device, first off it appears to be a HD wireless media streaming box like the Hauppauge Media MVP but hopefuly with a nicer UI.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
SolarJ
Apr 6, 09:44 AM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
A way around this is to create shortcuts (make alias) in a new folder of the applications you use most and put the folder in the dock and set the folder to a grid pattern.
Switched almost three years ago! However I still use Parallels to operate windows specific programs.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
A way around this is to create shortcuts (make alias) in a new folder of the applications you use most and put the folder in the dock and set the folder to a grid pattern.
Switched almost three years ago! However I still use Parallels to operate windows specific programs.
miles01110
May 2, 09:11 AM
lol
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Denarius
Mar 16, 01:08 PM
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
I don't think the military needs to. The steady increase in global energy prices makes nuclear economic. If government says the word, nuclear stations will spring up from the private sector.
Beyond that, independence from oil is a recipe for peace. At least for us...
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:27 PM
nixd2001:
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
EricNau
May 8, 05:08 PM
I can honestly and without exaggeration say that over half of the calls placed with my iPhone drop, and it's been getting progressively worse in both cities where I use my phone. It's practically unusable.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:05 AM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
chromos
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Well, a HDD for caching purposes should put to rest the speculation that the iTV is delayed until Q1 2007 in order for the 802.11n spec to "firm up". At least the a/g flavors should be sufficient to keep the unit fed.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:44 PM
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
skunk
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:50 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий