Moki said, "Well, in this case, there is indeed a spoon." I see this as saying, unlike the Matrix, there is a spoon in this case. He is saying the 970 spoon is real. He may even be hinting that the 970 is mind bending?
The problem is that the "established wisdom" in the analogy is that "there is no spoon".
So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
. . . So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
Just not a god analogy, sorry.
Okay, you say moki made a bad analogy. I was only trying to understand what moki meant by it. I do agree with you basic statement that the addition of the 970 to gcc is no indication that Apple will use the 970. Moki may be saying, while the gcc does not prove it, Apple will indeed use the 970 anyway. I guess I'm not into analogies and don't understand the fine points.
The problem is that the "established wisdom" in the analogy is that "there is no spoon".
So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
Just not a good analogy, sorry.
Heh, talk about reasoning yourself into a corner. You're a fan of conspiracy theories too, aren't you?
Moki was specifically contrasting this with the case from the movie. We know that in the movie the statement was true because it was part of the Matrix (although the definition of "reality" gets a bit fuzzy and I suspect, based on what is in the 2nd movie, will get even fuzzier in the 3rd movie). Moki's statement is likely also true because he seems to be "in the know", and his statement is simply that unlike in the movie there is truth behind what appears to be the case.
Sheesh, I hope we don't have to deal with any really hard issues here!
Okay, you say moki made a bad analogy. I was only trying to understand what moki meant by it. I do agree with you basic statement that the addition of the 970 to gcc is no indication that Apple will use the 970. Moki may be saying, while the gcc does not prove it, Apple will indeed use the 970 anyway. I guess I'm not into analogies and don't understand the fine points.
Well, in defense, in the Matrix analogy "there is no spoon" is only valid within the illusion of the matrix. Outside of the matrix illusion that is experienced, within the realms of material existence, there is another spoon or the possibility for another spoon, and that spoon is real. So in a sense, it was a very good analogy.
Well, in defense, in the Matrix analogy "there is no spoon" is only valid within the illusion of the matrix. Outside of the matrix illusion that is experienced, within the realms of material existence, there is another spoon or the possibility for another spoon, and that spoon is real. So in a sense, it was a very good analogy.
Heh. You haven't seen the 2nd movie yet, have you?
...hypothesising that the next generation of Apple machines will continue to use a G4 is just as valid as stating that they will use a 970 - given some argument to back each one up.
My understanding is that this forum isn't for wild speculation, but discussion of the available facts.
On your first point, I think it's 100% correct. A G4 PowerMac wouldn't surprise me actually.
On the second, I'd say it's for either. If we just stick to facts, then there is no Future Hardware. There's just current hardware. OK, we would have had a week to discuss the X-Serve since Apple pre-announced it. During the original iMac release, the Bondi, we had a few months after it was announced. And I guess we could discuss the machines that have been 'released', but not yet shipping. So we could discuss the 17" powerbook because it was delayed, but nothing else.
If we only speak of the facts about the next PowerMac, there are exactly zero facts we could be discussing.
You guys are engaging in what's known as "splitting hairs". You guys are truly using logic incorrectly. You guys are effectively trying to argue that 2+2 *might* equal 4, but we don't really know for certain.. after all, it might equal 6. In other words, in the terms of logic, you guys are committing a whole host of fallacies. Here is a list of some of them which you commit:
Non-sequitur: offering a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premise or the facts.
Oversimplification (Reductio ad absurdum): reducing an argument to an inaccurate absurdity--one where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Slothful induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Fallacy of opposition: those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight.
Nothing but objections: continually raising objections as a means of avoiding the issue.
Fallacy of repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): an assertion is considered more likely to be true the more often it is stated.
False dichotomy (bifurcation), "either/or", or the "all-or-nothing" mistake: presenting only two options
Ad hoc hypothesis: hypothesis used to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory.
And even after all that, you guys are still arguing to the n-degree of absurdity. Let's end this ridiculousness and get back on topic.
. . . You guys are truly using logic incorrectly. You guys are effectively trying to argue that 2+2 *might* equal 4, but we don't really know for certain.. after all, it might equal 6. In other words, in the terms of logic, you guys are committing a whole host of fallacies. . .
Hmmm. I didn't realize I was arguing. I was trying to understand and clarify what others were saying, especially when I thought they were being misunderstood. In any case, I sure would like to know as much about logic as you do. This may inspire me to read a book and learn something.
Regarding getting back on topic, a lot of this discussion was on topic. One question debated was whether the 970 in gcc was an indicator of Apple using the 970? That IS the topic.
Hmmm. I didn't realize I was arguing. I was trying to understand and clarify what others were saying, especially when I thought they were being misunderstood. In any case, I sure would like to know as much about logic as you do. This may inspire me to read a book and learn something.
Regarding getting back on topic, a lot of this discussion was on topic. One question debated was whether the 970 in gcc was an indicator of Apple using the 970? That IS the topic.
...explaining what other people said is arguing...
From Dictionary.com
To put forth reasons for or against.
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend.
To give evidence of; indicate.
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons.
I think it's very unlikely that Apple will use the Power4 in the foreseeable future - no one seems to be claiming that they will on the basis of this document anyway.
GCC supporting the 970 and AltiVec is obvious - why would IBM release a chip with no compiler support. Additionally AltiVec is in the G4 - so GCC would need AltiVec support for both the G4 and the 970 anyway.
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
No, its why the )(*)(*)( hasn't Apple paid IBM for a real compiler? Even if it only actually runs on official IBM big iron, one or two optimization passes on OSX could only be a good thing....
(Don't get me wrong, GCC looking to get much better for PPC code, not in the same ballpark yet though.)
Comments
Originally posted by snoopy
Moki said, "Well, in this case, there is indeed a spoon." I see this as saying, unlike the Matrix, there is a spoon in this case. He is saying the 970 spoon is real. He may even be hinting that the 970 is mind bending?
The problem is that the "established wisdom" in the analogy is that "there is no spoon".
So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
Just not a god analogy, sorry.
Originally posted by Clive
. . . So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
Just not a god analogy, sorry.
Okay, you say moki made a bad analogy. I was only trying to understand what moki meant by it. I do agree with you basic statement that the addition of the 970 to gcc is no indication that Apple will use the 970. Moki may be saying, while the gcc does not prove it, Apple will indeed use the 970 anyway. I guess I'm not into analogies and don't understand the fine points.
Originally posted by Clive
The problem is that the "established wisdom" in the analogy is that "there is no spoon".
So you can say "sure there's a spoon", but you'd look kind of foolish because the spoon is just part of the illusion.
Just not a good analogy, sorry.
Heh, talk about reasoning yourself into a corner. You're a fan of conspiracy theories too, aren't you?
Moki was specifically contrasting this with the case from the movie. We know that in the movie the statement was true because it was part of the Matrix (although the definition of "reality" gets a bit fuzzy and I suspect, based on what is in the 2nd movie, will get even fuzzier in the 3rd movie). Moki's statement is likely also true because he seems to be "in the know", and his statement is simply that unlike in the movie there is truth behind what appears to be the case.
Sheesh, I hope we don't have to deal with any really hard issues here!
Originally posted by snoopy
Okay, you say moki made a bad analogy. I was only trying to understand what moki meant by it. I do agree with you basic statement that the addition of the 970 to gcc is no indication that Apple will use the 970. Moki may be saying, while the gcc does not prove it, Apple will indeed use the 970 anyway. I guess I'm not into analogies and don't understand the fine points.
Well, in defense, in the Matrix analogy "there is no spoon" is only valid within the illusion of the matrix. Outside of the matrix illusion that is experienced, within the realms of material existence, there is another spoon or the possibility for another spoon, and that spoon is real. So in a sense, it was a very good analogy.
Originally posted by Shaktai
Well, in defense, in the Matrix analogy "there is no spoon" is only valid within the illusion of the matrix. Outside of the matrix illusion that is experienced, within the realms of material existence, there is another spoon or the possibility for another spoon, and that spoon is real. So in a sense, it was a very good analogy.
Heh. You haven't seen the 2nd movie yet, have you?
Originally posted by Clive
...hypothesising that the next generation of Apple machines will continue to use a G4 is just as valid as stating that they will use a 970 - given some argument to back each one up.
My understanding is that this forum isn't for wild speculation, but discussion of the available facts.
On your first point, I think it's 100% correct. A G4 PowerMac wouldn't surprise me actually.
On the second, I'd say it's for either. If we just stick to facts, then there is no Future Hardware. There's just current hardware. OK, we would have had a week to discuss the X-Serve since Apple pre-announced it. During the original iMac release, the Bondi, we had a few months after it was announced. And I guess we could discuss the machines that have been 'released', but not yet shipping. So we could discuss the 17" powerbook because it was delayed, but nothing else.
If we only speak of the facts about the next PowerMac, there are exactly zero facts we could be discussing.
You guys are engaging in what's known as "splitting hairs". You guys are truly using logic incorrectly. You guys are effectively trying to argue that 2+2 *might* equal 4, but we don't really know for certain.. after all, it might equal 6. In other words, in the terms of logic, you guys are committing a whole host of fallacies. Here is a list of some of them which you commit:
Non-sequitur: offering a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premise or the facts.
Oversimplification (Reductio ad absurdum): reducing an argument to an inaccurate absurdity--one where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Slothful induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Fallacy of opposition: those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight.
Nothing but objections: continually raising objections as a means of avoiding the issue.
Fallacy of repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): an assertion is considered more likely to be true the more often it is stated.
False dichotomy (bifurcation), "either/or", or the "all-or-nothing" mistake: presenting only two options
Ad hoc hypothesis: hypothesis used to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory.
And even after all that, you guys are still arguing to the n-degree of absurdity. Let's end this ridiculousness and get back on topic.
--
Ed
Originally posted by Ed M.
. . . You guys are truly using logic incorrectly. You guys are effectively trying to argue that 2+2 *might* equal 4, but we don't really know for certain.. after all, it might equal 6. In other words, in the terms of logic, you guys are committing a whole host of fallacies. . .
Hmmm. I didn't realize I was arguing. I was trying to understand and clarify what others were saying, especially when I thought they were being misunderstood. In any case, I sure would like to know as much about logic as you do. This may inspire me to read a book and learn something.
Regarding getting back on topic, a lot of this discussion was on topic. One question debated was whether the 970 in gcc was an indicator of Apple using the 970? That IS the topic.
Originally posted by Ed M.
Here is a list of some of them which you commit:
<great list of debating mistakes snipped>
Thanks Ed M, nice list.
MM
Originally posted by snoopy
Hmmm. I didn't realize I was arguing. I was trying to understand and clarify what others were saying, especially when I thought they were being misunderstood. In any case, I sure would like to know as much about logic as you do. This may inspire me to read a book and learn something.
Regarding getting back on topic, a lot of this discussion was on topic. One question debated was whether the 970 in gcc was an indicator of Apple using the 970? That IS the topic.
...explaining what other people said is arguing...
From Dictionary.com
To put forth reasons for or against.
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend.
To give evidence of; indicate.
To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons.
Originally posted by Ed M.
You guys are effectively trying to argue that 2+2 *might* equal 4, but we don't really know for certain.. after all, it might equal 6.
Well, that depends on whether the Matrix runs PPC970-optimized code or not.
Originally posted by Clive
I think it's very unlikely that Apple will use the Power4 in the foreseeable future - no one seems to be claiming that they will on the basis of this document anyway.
POWER4, no. GP-UL (aka, PPC970), yes.
Originally posted by Clive
GCC supporting the 970 and AltiVec is obvious - why would IBM release a chip with no compiler support. Additionally AltiVec is in the G4 - so GCC would need AltiVec support for both the G4 and the 970 anyway.
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
Originally posted by moki
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
ok, this is very clear.
BTW, are you still selling your company to MS?
Originally posted by Programmer
Heh. You haven't seen the 2nd movie yet, have you?
Not yet. Maybe soon.
Oh yeah, in my opinion odds are looking good for a very near future PPC970 powered Mac based on recent "evidence".
Originally posted by moki
IBM has its own heavily optimized POWER4 compilers already. A better question might be "Why is GCC only being optimized for the POWER4/PPC 970 architecture only now?"
No, its why the )(*)(*)( hasn't Apple paid IBM for a real compiler? Even if it only actually runs on official IBM big iron, one or two optimization passes on OSX could only be a good thing....
(Don't get me wrong, GCC looking to get much better for PPC code, not in the same ballpark yet though.)
spoon 6.0