"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, some of which are not mutually exclusive.[4][5][6] Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11] Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. Some anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all forms of coercion, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and terrorism, on the path to anarchy.[12]" - Good ol' Wikipedia tells it like it is.

If you didn't get it. Anarchism started and still in many ways a LEFT wing ideology centered around the abscenes of central government. Sry bro, the video was just not very good. I showed the video to my friend who did Political Science Masters and he crapped his pants. Politics and ideology are more complicated than a linear scale.

@rickw said:

There may be bipartisan efforts on some things, but there will always be partisanship. It's ludicrous to believe otherwise. When one side believes that the government should get out of the way and the other side belives the government should take over and solve the problems, there's no reconciling the two.

This video explains things very well. I would be particularly interested to hear the opinions of my Eastern European friends.

Rick, this was just about the least nuanced view of the political specturm I've ever come across. Maybe if the guys who made it understood where political Anarchism came from they would not have made the 100% vs 0% Government analogy, which is by the way laughable. On both left and right there are people who comply to authority and those who oppose it. The spectrum used by http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a much better way of assessing this.

Take a test http://www.politicalcompass.org/test. I wonder where you sit.

Gorgeous!

I just did the same test against my friend's 2x Xeon Quad Mac Pro found out this rig is about 25% faster. Considering his cost around £2200 and mine around £1500. I'd say I had a deal.

Gaieus, yes i heard about the Pentium 4 multi threading. I heard for some reason they axed it on the Duo Core processors. Maybe it was too good value for money?

I believe that now the i7 Cores are released there is no reason other than cost to go AMD anymore. The benchmarks are amazing! The slowest i7 Core 920 is faster than the fastest last generation Quad (the QX9775)which is incredable! Plus they apparently can overclock relatively easily according to Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/). It was worth the wait. Now I am going to specify a system with the following hardware:

Intel Core i7-920 2.66Ghz
6Gb DDR3 Ram
WD velociRaptor 10000Rpm HD
Samsung 1TB Spinpoint 7200rpm HD
Asus P6T Desluxe Intel X58 Motherboard
Quadro FX 1700 Graphics Card

That should do the trick for modelling and rendering

Any improvement welcome.

Just done a quick test with my new i7 Core 920 CPU desktop (2.67GHz x 4 Stock overclocked to 3.00GHz x 4) running the same VRay rendering against my T9500 2.6GHz x2 Core Duo laptop.

i7 Cores managed to finish the rendering just under 3 minutes, while the Core duo took 14 minutes. Thats almost 5x the speed!!!

It turns out the multi threading on i7 Cores gets working as 2 cpus per core making VRay run like as if I had 8 cores.

Superb results, I recommend it to anyone.

People keep saying oh the hype is so bad he will never live up to it. On the other hand, the Bush administration did set the bar very low...

Thx I just tried it myself and it works.

So how did you get it to work?

Is there a way for you to compare sketchup perfomance between windows 7 and Vista?

I am no feminist, however, it does struck me as pulling all the stereotypes without being obnoxious, which makes it more objectionable in my humble opinion. The male goes through different emotional states, is active while the female remains passive and swayed by his torrent of 'self-loathing'. She was like a prop onto which the male lead could project his ego. It would have been a lot more convincing if there was more of a interaction. Or perhaps I am reading way too much into this.

OMG, Cadfather, why can't Google hire you!? I am always amazed by how professionally thought out your tools (interface at least) are! Thank you.

Wow, 'does she clean' (refering to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) coming from a woman... It was all rather funny until this point.

Isn't this another twist on the old damsel in distress formulae? Men have this deep seated fantasy about vulnerable women (emotional creatures, blah blah blah...) and this is a shameful exploitation of it dressed up as romantic fluff particularly from a male perspective. It left me with lingering bad after taste in my mouth.

I'd say lack of sensitivity to other people's feelings is part of the job description of being in the army and the Royal family. It's rather fitting to his psychological profile. The only mistake he is going to be reprimanded for is the fact that it leaked to the press. I don't expect any better from this national shame of an institution.

@bellwells said:

@chango70 said:

How can Capitalism be divorced from the practice of Capitalism?....Capitalism is all about anti-competitive practices that actually detriment free-market principles....You see Capitalism in its current form is actually detrimental to the practice of free-market enterprise.

Read my post again. I'm distinguishing capitalism from those who practice it.

Capitalism is precisely the opposite of anti-competitive. It thrives on competition and innovation. The inverse is probably more true: competition and innovation need a capitalistic environment to thrive and flourish. Innovators and doers need to know their efforts can be rewarded within a capitalistic environment; one owned by the people. Corporations aren't the only entities who practice capitalism. You do, I do, the corner store owner does. You can't define system by looking only at large international corporations.

I'm baffled as to why you think "capitalism is detrimental to the practice of free-market enterprise". I think exactly the opposite. Please explain.

Simple, what you describe is free market dynamics of which the laws are probably immutable. Capitalism is a particular form of free market dynamic that exist as a certain historical formation. Capitalism isn't an ideology but a particular set of practices within the frame work of the Free market. In this day and age the dominant form of Capitalism is Corporate Capitalism which have the following anti-competitive tendencies and I quote myself "monopoly, dumping, with-holding stock, lobby groups, hotile take-overs of peer companies or those that supply or deal with related services and conditioning of consumers they can manipulate the market to their favour". These are all anti-market practices. For example when a manufacturer get sufficiently big it no long has to play to the market rules of supply and demand. It can do the following. Buy out its competitors as a form of horizonal monopoly (stifles competition and innovation). Alternatively it can take over services related to selling the product (Apple Stores) or take over the suppliers of Raw Material (vertical monopoly). It can withold stock to inflate value (de Beers dimonds anyone?) and it can dump cheap stocks of deflate market value. It can advertise and creat demand that isn't there. It may decide to move its capital elsewhere where labor is cheapor. Do any of those sound familier? You see we live in an age of Giant Mega corporate form of Capitalism which is a abhorant deviation of free market priciples brought about mainly through our own folly. When Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations he didn't have Nike, or Microsoft in mind. Theorists such as Deleuze and Guattari in 'Capitalism and Schizophrenia' calls Capitalism 'Anti-Market'.

@bellwells said:

@honoluludesktop said:

Come on Ron, you wouldn't advocate no controlls on the distribution of drugs? Somewhere with every situation is a line that represents optimum balance. I personally favor free markets, but in hindsight not at the current pace deregulation was implemented.

I'm saying capitalism and free markets are inherently good. It's the practitioners who can mess it up. Certain governmental regulation is necessary, even desired. Finding the optimum balance, as you put it, is the goal.

How can Capitalism be divorced from the practice of Capitalism? Capitalism, unlike religions doesn't hold claims of truth therefore it is not an ideology but a praxis. There is a fundamental fallacy that people always fall for, they mix-up the Market-economy with Capitalism. Market economy can be idealised as having optimizing properties in certain respects like supply and demand. Capitalism is all about anti-competitive practices that actually detriment free-market principles. Just look at what corporations do. They realised early on by monopoly, dumping, with-holding stock, lobby groups, hotile take-overs of peer companies or those that supply or deal with related services and conditioning of consumers they can manipulate the market to their favour (i.e. multi-national Conglomerate's version of Capitalism). This is fine and dandy as such practices also occur in nature however, in nature there is no National or international Institutions that can institutionalise in Law and enforcement the advantages gained by this particular way of Capitalism. You see Capitalism in its current form is actually detrimental to the practice of free-market enterprise.

@kwistenbiebel said:

@j3nsen said:

@chango70 said:

I believe that now the i7 Cores are released there is no reason other than cost to go AMD anymore. The benchmarks are amazing! The slowest i7 Core 920 is faster than the fastest last generation Quad (the QX9775)which is incredable! Plus they apparent can overclock relatively easily according to Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/). It was worth the wait. Now I am going to specify a system with the following hardware:

Intel Core i7-920 2.66Ghz
6Gb DDR3 Ram
WD velociRaptor 10000Rpm HD
Samsung 1TB Spinpoint 7200rpm HD
Asus P6T Desluxe Intel X58 Motherboard
Quadro FX 1700 Graphics Card

That should do the trick for modelling and rendering

Any improvement welcome.

WOAOW!!!

Yeah well, a super rig like that won't do you any good when using Sketchup.
Sketchup will still perform like your grandmothers software.

I don't even understand we even have this thread going.
Sketchup 7 is the same slow bug splatting beast as SU 6, no matter what rig you have.
(SU crashes about 20 times a day on my 8 core PC on mildly complex models).

Sadly, there is absolutely no use in getting a monster PC to run Sketchup.
Period.

You are ofcourse absolutely right. However it does help out other applications like Rhino a great deal. I have to say there is a noticeable increase in ability to handle more complex geometry but it is still slow handling lots of high detail trees. I guess there is no getting around the fact that Sketchup IS a slow program...