Pentium M versus Pentium 4 and so much more....
** sorry. i realize this is a late entry in the race - and this is probaby a dead thread... can't help but speak out. it's one of those amendment things... **
P4 vs. P-M?
I am a linux kernel developer. For me, the important thing is compiling linux kernels over and over again, after applying patches, fixing device drivers, etc., etc.
My 1.6GHz Pentium M, with 768M of RAM, time after time out compiles my AthlonXP 2800+, loaded with 1G of RAM. This is not a benchmark. It's my real world, real life, I get paid to do this job, empirically observed, and gathered data.
On battery power or on AC power, rain or shine, the result is the same. Clearly an apples and oranges comparison, as I do not have a P4 here at my home. However, we do have 3.0GHz P4's at the office, and yes, they are far more brisk than either the 1.6GHz Pentium M, or the AthlonXP 2800+ (on par with my Athlon64 3000+, however).
But the bottom line is, I can get my work done on my laptop without a huge performance penalty, and to me, that is what is important. So, I think someone some pages back said it best and I'll paraphrase - "pick what works best for you and your situation, and what you want to do with your notebook."
Concerning performance as an analogy to Ferrari performance... I grew up dirt poor, but have done quite well for myself since then, having been able to own such fine sports as a '92 3000GT VR-4 Twin Turbo, a '96 BMW M3, a '98 BMW M3, several smatterings of smaller sports cars, and most recently a 2004 WRX STi. Though nowhere near the "prestige and nobility" of the Ferrari, my latest ride rivals the performance of the likes of the Aston Martin DB9, Bentley Continental GT, Ferrari 612, and Mercedes CL600
(euro sports car references at car and driver
andthe STi references at car and driver
Still able to hit 0-60 in a theoretical 4.6 seconds, already having hit 145 mph and having room to go faster, and being able to do a 1/4 mile in about 13 seconds yet giving me the payola to get my Pentium M notebook, its all I really need right now. Heck, even if I had $250K to spend on a Ferrari...at this point, I know that I would get a 2004 BMW M3, put a turbocharger kit in it, and smoke that $250K Ferrari any given day. Anyway, enough of that, lest I be accused of being a braggart and having an ego.
As to the larger, and very tangential and off topic philosophical, metaphysical, transcendantel debate(s)...
First thing is a note to EDR. It might help you in future discussions with other said 13 year olds to not always construe "you said" to mean that you "literally said" such and such statement or comment.
Now to start with, what is the point of communication. Is it not to convey information? What is the point if you have hidden your intended communication within indecipherable riddles of linguistics and semantics??? As I quote you...
|This is the funny part, how you and others think YOU know what my meanings and intentions are. I've hidden them, and you've exposed them for me. Arrogance.
Perhaps I missed the point of communication all these years, but I thought that what person A told person B was in an effort to imbue (there's a dictionary word for you) the other with knowledge... So that person A would indeed KNOW what person B was saying. So that person A would KNOW what the meaning and intentions of person B were in full context and detail. Thus, if person A did not come away from a conversation with understanding, then there was NO COMMUNICATION. And I might venture, since you poked into religion, is not hiding knowlede in your statement akin to masking that knowledge? Or giving a half or misleading knowledge? So then, when you convey your thoughts in one of your
arguments and debates, is it your intent to communicate
misleading and meandering commentary?
When any of the few (I will say few - as you slammed ClonedAncient for saying several when in reality the literal number was...I think you said 2...so yes, several would not apply - of course here, I say few, because there were more than 2 parties with which you at some point or another had some form of debate/argument/miscommunication with) tried to establish commonality and common ground, you pretty much threw it in their collective faces...and rather rudely.
In some type of response to your commentary on billionaires, wealth, success, and higher education (I will clarify here and say that my intention is not to link any one thing, i.e., billionaires, wealth, etc., with the other - I am merely naming them as articles in a list), I looked up the top 125 riches people in the world out of the Forbes 2004 World's Richest People list.
From the top 125 billionaires, about 39% (this is not a hard and fast number - I could have counted wrong and you could recount and prove me wrong, EDR, which I know is dangerous given your penchant for attacking literal realization of said statements) were either only a high school graduate, a bachelor's level college graduate, or a college dropout when they "made themselves" as financially
successful people (they might not be the happiest people in the world...but, I don't know them personally so I won't even attempt to conjecture, will you, EDR?).
52% of the top 125 aquired their wealth through inheritance. Ha, they didn't even have to work for it.
And 9% had at least a Masters degree or higher before "making themselves" into successes. Of course, again, these numbers could be wrong. I did manually count 65 out 125 billionaires to have inherited their money, and 11 of the 125 having a higher level education, thus leading me to the percentage of self-made idiots (oops, I meant successess, but you knew that) indirectly, so my math could be off.
Yep, I only have a bachelors of science in engineering and aced my engineering classes - but hey, I didn't have a lot of real world experience counting billionaires until just now.
To continue this, I am going to quote what you said to acurarsx. This pretty much helped to start this whole thing, though admittedly, acurarsx carries the ultimate blame for the commenting with, "When you're in graduate-level computer engineering courses, call me...:"
|That's the most extreme ego I've seen yet on this forum. I don't care if you have a Ph.D., or other Masters - I've managed your type in real life scenarios (yes hired and fired your type - mostly fired). All I've got to say is Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Rockefeller's.
So what exactly is your meaning here?? You start this paragraph with something about his extreme ego, which I perceive to be a negative thing. You follow with the fact that you DON'T care about a Ph.D or Masters degree - then end with 3 personalities. Are these 3 personalities supposed to represent people who have Ph.D's or Masters? Or not? My guess, is that they represent the NOTS, in which case, I would have to guess that you are trying to illustrate how a Ph.D or Masters does not translate directly to (financial) success, as you have defined it (by naming 3 very wealthy people). If my W.A.G. (wild *ss guess) is off the mark, by all means, please confuse me further.
|Isn't it funny (or at least worth noticing) how the most successful entrepeneurs have little to no college education. Hmmm.
Why are there T.V. shows like "The Apprentice" on T.V.? There's always been an age 'ol debate between the wanna bees, the think-they-and know-it-all types and the street savvy. Well, again, not one of our current BILLIONAIRES have a *Masters*. Hate to throw that at ya.
Not one? Are you sure about that? You're positive? Because...you are an expert? Because...you know them all personally? Because...Forbes magazine is your "bible?" Well dammit all, cause you are incorrect...
Here are the billionaires (notice the plural form of the word) varying with Masters and Ph.D's, who are - as you define it - self made financial successes:
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Columbia University, Master of Science
University of Tennessee Knoxville, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Wake Forest University, Master of Business Administration
Harvard University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Harvard University, Doctor of Jurisprudence
University of Oregon, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business Administration
University of California Berkeley, Bachelor of Arts / Science
California Institute of Technology, Doctorate
University of Karlsruhe
University of Karlsruhe, Master of Science
Johns Hopkins University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Harvard University, Master of Business Administration
Duke University, Bachelor of Arts / Science
University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, Master of Science
University of Lyon, Bachelor of Arts / Science
University of Zurich, Master of Business Administration
University of Toronto, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Stanford University, Master of Business Administration
Novolipetsk Steel Mill
Siberian Metallurgical Institute, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Russian Academy of Economics, Doctorate
And incidentally, have you read anything about Donald Trump? Or are you just spouting at the mouth, EDR? His father already had a good thing (a successful investment in affordable housing real estate) going and Donald was brought up learning the business with ol' pappy. When his father died, "The Don" took over what was already running...it's not like he started from square one. There was already a clientale, money, real estate, and resources. He had learned a lot already from his father. It's not that I am not giving him any credit, but I cannot equate him with Joe Bloggs who dropped out of college and is now working at McD's because SuperCorporation X cannot see his potential - primarily because I don't know anything about Joe Bloggs.
And Rockeller? Did you even look up anything about him? At the age of 12 he had saved up $50 from doing work for neighbors. In terms of 2004 dollars, that is equal to about $1042 . You can check it by going to this site:
(inflation conversion factors
Did you have that much money at the age of 12, EDR? You know I didn't. I already said that I was dirt poor. He was also something of a math prodigy and actually ended up at the age of 16 attending what in 1855 was a college. And again, he learned a lot from his father early on - things that helped jump start him. Once again, I am not discrediting his "meager" start - I am saying that it did not start at a null state. I had to borrow money for college. If at anytime, I couldn't borrow money, or couldn't find a job while going to college, I would have had to drop out and work as well. My dad did not have his own business to pass on to me. My dad did not have any of this knowledge to pass on to me. What does any of this mean? Squat. Because I am just one example, and who the heck knows what would happen? It's easy to look back in retrospect and go, "ooh, yeah, that guy is a billionaire and all he has is a high school diploma..."
And Bill Gates...well, someone earlier already establish that his great talent was marketing and the grand ability to take other people's great ideas.
Some more of your words...
|Gosh, I repeatedly find myself having to reiterate points, because you folks contiunally put words into my mouth, and/or have comprehension problems. Many of you have done this many times, simply to argue. It's like you intentionally try to create an argument out of content that's not there. Funny.
In any case, I absolutely agree with you, that Academia, scientists, engineers, and Ph.D's are good. Never said they weren't. They are good for us and for society, in general. However, *when* (thanks X at least you took the time to read) one uses their degree to undermine someone else, that's a problem!
Again, I say .... name me even 1 BILLIONAIRE that has a Ph.D and that got that degree prior to making all of their money. There are some people who make their money and then go back to school and get higher degrees since they have the money to spend, and other people running their businesses - that's a rarity though.
Yeah. Someone did name you ONE. And I named you 11.
|In any case, isn't it funny that all of our *most wealthy* individuals today have either a bachelor's degree only, or didn't even finish college? Seriously, why is that? What caused that pattern? Anyone want to address that, or are you going to put words in my mouth again?
I find it funnier that you have no idea of what you are talking about but speak it with such confidence. Note I made no commentary on the actual words, or perceived words coming out of, or going into, your mouth.
So really, it seems, most
of the successful (as measured in terms of $$$) people actually inherited their money - well, at least from the top 125 billionaires. Most of them did not obtain their wealth the hard way, pulling up their bootstraps with only a high school diploma or a partial college degree. And what was said was quite a blanket statement. Hmm, seems recall quite a few broad statements without backup do originating from you every now and then, EDR... I quote:
|Many scientists have stood their ground for years, to finally admit years later that their *theories* or *arguments* were wrong at the time.
Like who? Wrong about what? Which theory? Or, let me backup. Was it a theory? Or a hypothesis? There is a difference? But of course, you knew that. And in what context were they wrong? Was it a minor dispute? Was it a major rewrite of a theory? Back to the drawing board as they say? Gee, looks like stranded statement without any backup to me.
I mean, how in the world did you come about this knowledge? Do session musicians often discuss this type of thing in between recording songs? Is this what you guys talk about at your water cooler at work? Scientists in 2004: are they wrong or are they right?
Let see what other silly comments you make... Oh yeah:
|Many people can't afford to goto school, but are more tenacious that the majority. They are driven and ambitious.
Really? Wow. You know all those people? What are your qualifiers? Who is this majority? The majority of people who can afford to go to school, and then do go to school? The majority of people who can afford to go to school, but then do not go to school, because they have daddy's trust fund or are just waiting in line to work the company? The majority of people who cannot afford to go to school, but manage to get to school somehow? The majority of people who cannot afford to go to school, and never do go to school?
And just what is the exact level of ambition and drive of each person?? And how do you know this? Did you take an exit poll? Outside of a grocery store? Outside a college bar? Outside a ghetto bar? Outside a nude bar?
Somehow you contend that we, here on the forum, cannot possibly pretend to understand what you write to us (that which we can actually see and can read in all of its cipher and childlike fervency)? Yet you somehow seem to understand the minds of countless people you have never met??
You maintain that we cannot know what you mean, because we don't have the benefit of seeing body gestures, facial gestures, etc., etc., to help further clarify your thought interpretations, inferences, and intimations? But even without ever seeing these people, anything they've written, not even their names - and just presuming (or is that ASSuming) they exist, you know these wondrous things about them? I am impressed. Or is this another blanket statement?