Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Monday Note)   Macintel's days are numbered   (mondaynote.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2918 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Aug 2014 at 12:27 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-05 09:36:37 AM  
Because of this excess baggage, an x86 chip needs more transistors than its ARM-based equivalent, and thus it consumes more power and must dissipate more heat.

Instruction set decode has not been a major driver of chip complexity for some time. For a while the basic decision was in-order or out-of-order. Last I heard, Intel's low end chips were still based on the dual-issue but in order Pentium design. The high end chips have a big scheduler on the front end to keep track of all the microoperations in flight and ensure ISA-level consistency. The high end chips use a lot more power and area for a little more performance.
 
2014-08-05 10:40:44 AM  
FTFA: Given two microprocessors with the same manufacturing cost, power dissipation, and computing power, but where one runs Windows and the other doesn't, which chip will achieve the higher market price in the PC market

Has this guy been in a cave since the 90s? Intel has a significant advantage as a result of driving each next generation of process improvement.
 
2014-08-05 11:24:58 AM  
As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.
 
2014-08-05 12:36:31 PM  
Emerging media formats demand new extensions, while obsolete constructs must be maintained for the sake of Microsoft's backward compatibility religion.

Nobody want to upgrade everything annually except pretentious hipster douchebags. Microsoft rules the business domain for this. very. reason.
 
2014-08-05 12:37:17 PM  

Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.


I have a question for you.

Is it possible to build an OSX system?

Someone asked me the other day if it was possible, and I told them I had know idea. I know next to nothing about Apple hardware, and have only rudimentary knowledge of OSX.

Can you buy custom pieces and throw one together?  Can you do it with PC pieces? My impression was that Apple was the only source for complete systems. I know another company attempted Mac clones (Pioneer?), but I never heard anything about it again.
 
2014-08-05 12:43:10 PM  
Meh. There is a reason that Mac use off the shelf components. Apple excels at integration, not necessarily development of these components. The price argument also falls pretty flat since Apple has historically been fine with charging a premium for a system using all high-end components. There is no telling when they will fall prey to the stockholders demanding ever-increasing margins, but until the culture changes they won't make such a decision purely for cost savings. They could have gone AMD long ago.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-05 12:43:20 PM  
Apple works to prevent non-Apple hardware from running MacOS. In addition to taking technical measures, they will send intellectual property lawyers after anybody who tries to make it easy.

Recently Apple insists on internet-based software instead of offline install from media. This gives the master control program a chance to look at the hardware you are installing on and smite you if you are naughty in their sight. They do keep track of which devices are associated with your Apple ID.
 
2014-08-05 12:44:30 PM  

Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.


Yeah, but you can pretty much the same battery life improvement without affecting application compatibility by swapping out the Core i3/i5/i7 chips with Bay Trail Atoms. There's a reason Windows RT tablets have flopped hard while new Atom based tablets like the Dell Venue 8 Pro have sold well on the Windows side of things. A full desktop OS + ARM is something only the Bad Idea Bears would get behind with Bay Trail being available, and even more powerful Atoms with better battery life in the pipeline.
 
2014-08-05 12:52:12 PM  
ZAZ:

Recently Apple insists on internet-based software instead of offline install from media. This gives the master control program a chance to look at the hardware you are installing on and smite you if you are naughty in their sight. They do keep track of which devices are associated with your Apple ID.

It also saves them a shiatLOAD of money on creating DVDs and then shipping and packaging them, which allows them to release the new OS for free. It is really not that hard to create a install DVD or flash drive for OS X. Plus, if you are installing it on a Hackintosh, you are probably better off downloading an image that has already been hacked to bypass the hardware security restrictions on the OS.
 
2014-08-05 12:52:33 PM  

mainstreet62: Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.

I have a question for you.

Is it possible to build an OSX system?

Someone asked me the other day if it was possible, and I told them I had know idea. I know next to nothing about Apple hardware, and have only rudimentary knowledge of OSX.

Can you buy custom pieces and throw one together?  Can you do it with PC pieces? My impression was that Apple was the only source for complete systems. I know another company attempted Mac clones (Pioneer?), but I never heard anything about it again.


Yeah, it can be done. Google Hackintosh.
 
2014-08-05 01:02:11 PM  

mainstreet62: Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.


I have a question for you.

Is it possible to build an OSX system?

Someone asked me the other day if it was possible, and I told them I had know idea. I know next to nothing about Apple hardware, and have only rudimentary knowledge of OSX.

Can you buy custom pieces and throw one together?  Can you do it with PC pieces?


yes -- it's fairly easy. basically if you use a gigabyte brand motherboard with an intel chip and an nvidia video card, it "just works" with only minor hacking required.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/437-building-customac-buyer-s-guide-july-2 01 4.html
 
2014-08-05 01:07:53 PM  

Tax Boy: mainstreet62: Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.


I have a question for you.

Is it possible to build an OSX system?

Someone asked me the other day if it was possible, and I told them I had know idea. I know next to nothing about Apple hardware, and have only rudimentary knowledge of OSX.

Can you buy custom pieces and throw one together?  Can you do it with PC pieces?

yes -- it's fairly easy. basically if you use a gigabyte brand motherboard with an intel chip and an nvidia video card, it "just works" with only minor hacking required.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/437-building-customac-buyer-s-guide-july-2 01 4.html


I may have to look into this again when I need a new system. The iMac seems limited and the Mac Pro is now WAY too much for just playing games and doing some development. I just want a nice tower with some drive bays that won't force me to sell my children to afford it.
 
2014-08-05 01:29:17 PM  
Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.

Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.
 
2014-08-05 01:34:31 PM  

Clent: As an Apple developer, I agree that this is a direction Apple could go and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were working on maintaining binaries that compiled to the 64-bit ARM chips with a special add on for running apps compiled for x86.

I doubt price will change; ask any hater and they'll tell you about Apple's high margins. Apple will sell it on battery alone.


I'm curious if there is any urge to leave it possible to install Windows onto future non-Intel Macs; it seems like being able to do this is a huge selling point of modern Apple PCs.
 
2014-08-05 01:53:32 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.

Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.


Local processing power will be moot when everything is running in the iCloud.
 
2014-08-05 01:56:26 PM  
Have fun editing video or doing other media-related computing on an ARM chip.

Maybe Apple wants to turn the Mac line into something like Chromebook... I guess that would be something.

If Apple wants to stop paying intel for chips, they can always go to AMD. I find it a bit dumb, however, to blame the high cost of Macs on the processor, when so many other PC makers can get the job done and make a good profit for 40% less MSRP on comparable hardware.

This story has John Dvorak levels of speculative BS, without any of the technical knowledge.
 
2014-08-05 02:08:09 PM  

Mr.Tangent: Obscene_CNN: Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.

Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.

Local processing power will be moot when everything is running in the iCloud.


Not for games, or data intensive apps,  or anything to sensitive to put on the cloud.
 
2014-08-05 02:32:52 PM  

LesserEvil: Have fun editing video or doing other media-related computing on an ARM chip.


Thanks!
 
2014-08-05 02:34:40 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.


Pffft.  Faster isn't always, like, *better*, man.

I support the artisanal, heirloom, "slow processing" movement.

You've probably never heard of it.
 
jvl
2014-08-05 03:04:00 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.


Please be quiet while the grown ups are talking. While the 8086 has a number of features which make it easier to port 8080 assembly code to it, it most certainly is not compatible. You cannot run an 8080 binary on an 8086.  In ancient times, I wrote a Perl script which translated 8080 assembly text into 8086 assembly text, so I know a bit about this.
 
2014-08-05 03:06:12 PM  
I think Apple needs to transition to a PowerPC architecture.  It's the wave of the future.
 
2014-08-05 03:11:25 PM  

b2theory: FTFA: Given two microprocessors with the same manufacturing cost, power dissipation, and computing power, but where one runs Windows and the other doesn't, which chip will achieve the higher market price in the PC market

Has this guy been in a cave since the 90s? Intel has a significant advantage as a result of driving each next generation of process improvement.


Well, tbh they did get lazy for a while. AMD blindsided them pretty well with the Athlon 64. At the time all Intel could release was the Prescott core, which was nicknamed 'the space heater' because it seemed it's primary function was to turn electricity into waste heat. Intel got really lucky their laptop division designed a chip that scaled well for desktops.

Not an AMD fanboi, I buy whatever is fastest for what I do.
 
jvl
2014-08-05 03:16:11 PM  

Ambitwistor: I think Apple needs to transition to a PowerPC architecture.  It's the wave of the future.


Yep. This is the real problem if you transition to ARM, and we've seen it all before:

If ARM performs just a bit better than Intel, you get a pat on the head and a small number of extra sales.

If ARM performs worse than Intel, Macs get scoffed at for being so much less powerful and way less sales.

There's no scenario in which the Mac completely moves off Intel. Having two architectures is an annoyance for developers and for Apple (in recent OS releases Apple dropped support for old PPC, then all PPC, then Intel32). An Air already lasts all day long. All ARM is going to do is reduce the cost of an Air).
 
2014-08-05 03:27:27 PM  

inglixthemad: b2theory: FTFA: Given two microprocessors with the same manufacturing cost, power dissipation, and computing power, but where one runs Windows and the other doesn't, which chip will achieve the higher market price in the PC market

Has this guy been in a cave since the 90s? Intel has a significant advantage as a result of driving each next generation of process improvement.

Well, tbh they did get lazy for a while. AMD blindsided them pretty well with the Athlon 64. At the time all Intel could release was the Prescott core, which was nicknamed 'the space heater' because it seemed it's primary function was to turn electricity into waste heat. Intel got really lucky their laptop division designed a chip that scaled well for desktops.

Not an AMD fanboi, I buy whatever is fastest for what I do.


I don't have a horse in the race. I do know that Intel has invested heavily in advanced processes which are the primary driver of performance and efficiency. The author casually says Global Foundries are investing in a 14nm process like it's no big deal, hey if Apple wants it Apple gets it. The fabs for that process are going to cost more than Apple makes off their Mac line in a decade.
 
2014-08-05 03:41:56 PM  

jvl: Obscene_CNN: Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.

Please be quiet while the grown ups are talking. While the 8086 has a number of features which make it easier to port 8080 assembly code to it, it most certainly is not compatible. You cannot run an 8080 binary on an 8086.  In ancient times, I wrote a Perl script which translated 8080 assembly text into 8086 assembly text, so I know a bit about this.


Okay while the 8086 was not binary compatible with the 8080 it was marketed as source compatible.

"Marketed as source compatible, the 8086 was designed to allow assembly language for the 8008, 8080, or 8085 to be automatically converted into equivalent (sub-optimal) 8086 source code, with little or no hand-editing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086 

This is also part of the reason why the 8086 has segment registers. Intel was targeting the mini computer and mainframe market. The idea was so that you could run programs in their own little 64K address space and have the OS switch between them.

In college I actually got to play with an 80186 based multi user system that someone donated.
 
2014-08-05 03:55:48 PM  
If Apple moves to ARM processors for desktops it will be to lock all users in the app store to get all applications so they get their 30% cut. No more install via DVD or download from websites. Just like iOS unless you jailbreak it.

So cheaper cost to apple with minimal savings if any to consumers for the computers and Apple getting 30% of all non-free software installed on each computer.

I would assume they would keep the Pro Desktop & Laptop Intel based for the performance needed for those who will spend the extra money, but iMacs, Mac Mini and Macbook air would go ARM.
 
2014-08-05 04:40:33 PM  

Tex Murphy P.I.: If Apple moves to ARM processors for desktops it will be to lock all users in the app store to get all applications so they get their 30% cut. No more install via DVD or download from websites. Just like iOS unless you jailbreak it.

So cheaper cost to apple with minimal savings if any to consumers for the computers and Apple getting 30% of all non-free software installed on each computer.

I would assume they would keep the Pro Desktop & Laptop Intel based for the performance needed for those who will spend the extra money, but iMacs, Mac Mini and Macbook air would go ARM.


this is what i'm assuming as well

inglixthemad: b2theory: FTFA: Given two microprocessors with the same manufacturing cost, power dissipation, and computing power, but where one runs Windows and the other doesn't, which chip will achieve the higher market price in the PC market

Has this guy been in a cave since the 90s? Intel has a significant advantage as a result of driving each next generation of process improvement.

Well, tbh they did get lazy for a while. AMD blindsided them pretty well with the Athlon 64. At the time all Intel could release was the Prescott core, which was nicknamed 'the space heater' because it seemed it's primary function was to turn electricity into waste heat. Intel got really lucky their laptop division designed a chip that scaled well for desktops.

Not an AMD fanboi, I buy whatever is fastest for what I do.


for sure, the pentium 2 and 3 got stomped by the athlon, and the K-7 was good too

i eventually switched back to intel for an i7 tho, for what i do it just stomps amd into the ground
 
2014-08-05 05:03:14 PM  
FINALLY, A POWERBOOK G5!!!
 
2014-08-05 05:07:42 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Emerging media formats demand new extensions, while obsolete constructs must be maintained for the sake of Microsoft's backward compatibility religion.

Nobody want to upgrade everything annually except pretentious hipster douchebags. Microsoft rules the business domain for this. very. reason.


That advantage is slipping. Programming on Windows is a nightmare at this point, you've got seven layers of wrappers around every API just to make something work like it did a decade ago. So it's great if you want to run a bunch of ancient software, terrible if you need something new.
 
2014-08-05 05:09:41 PM  

AdamK: Tex Murphy P.I.: If Apple moves to ARM processors for desktops it will be to lock all users in the app store to get all applications so they get their 30% cut. No more install via DVD or download from websites. Just like iOS unless you jailbreak it.

So cheaper cost to apple with minimal savings if any to consumers for the computers and Apple getting 30% of all non-free software installed on each computer.

I would assume they would keep the Pro Desktop & Laptop Intel based for the performance needed for those who will spend the extra money, but iMacs, Mac Mini and Macbook air would go ARM.

this is what i'm assuming as well

inglixthemad: b2theory: FTFA: Given two microprocessors with the same manufacturing cost, power dissipation, and computing power, but where one runs Windows and the other doesn't, which chip will achieve the higher market price in the PC market

Has this guy been in a cave since the 90s? Intel has a significant advantage as a result of driving each next generation of process improvement.

Well, tbh they did get lazy for a while. AMD blindsided them pretty well with the Athlon 64. At the time all Intel could release was the Prescott core, which was nicknamed 'the space heater' because it seemed it's primary function was to turn electricity into waste heat. Intel got really lucky their laptop division designed a chip that scaled well for desktops.

Not an AMD fanboi, I buy whatever is fastest for what I do.

for sure, the pentium 2 and 3 got stomped by the athlon, and the K-7 was good too

i eventually switched back to intel for an i7 tho, for what i do it just stomps amd into the ground


Yea 3 1/2 yrs ago when I had to assemble a new PC I almost bought the Athlon 64, someone on a board suggested I wait a week and get the new i series Sandy bridge CPUs. I really owe a computer to that guy's advice. This thing hasn't slowed down and is a massive powerhouse for video transcoding, ripping, editing and running VMs, playing games. Used to take less than 30 sec to boot before now takes about 35. I don't see myself buying another desktop for at least another 5 years.
 
2014-08-05 06:49:21 PM  

MrEricSir: Prophet of Loss: Emerging media formats demand new extensions, while obsolete constructs must be maintained for the sake of Microsoft's backward compatibility religion.

Nobody want to upgrade everything annually except pretentious hipster douchebags. Microsoft rules the business domain for this. very. reason.

That advantage is slipping. Programming on Windows is a nightmare at this point, you've got seven layers of wrappers around every API just to make something work like it did a decade ago. So it's great if you want to run a bunch of ancient software, terrible if you need something new.


Well, that made no sense.

Programming on Windows is a breeze these days. .NET frameworks makes it trivial to write software for Windows, and compared to writing Windows apps in C... geez. that's a nightmare I'm glad I no longer have to deal with these days. Come to think of it, but I'm also glad I no longer have to deal with MFC, either.

The only problem occurs when you try and keep up with whatever Microsoft's "flavor of the day" programming paradigm is, but Windows Forms as a framework has been kicking along nicely for ages, so no need to move onto newer frameworks. C# has been around for 12 years now, and there is a lot of third-party code out there, as well.

As for your "seven layers of wrappers" - again, that isn't true. There are certainly a large number of "wrappers" in the form of frameworks, but it's not like Windows Forms or WPF were built over MFC. Those wrappers also act as a buffer against potential leaks and security issues, since they call the low-level APIs correctly (well, hopefully,but that is what framework patches take care of after the fact).
 
2014-08-05 06:57:53 PM  

LesserEvil: As for your "seven layers of wrappers" - again, that isn't true. There are certainly a large number of "wrappers" in the form of frameworks, but it's not like Windows Forms or WPF were built over MFC. Those wrappers also act as a buffer against potential leaks and security issues, since they call the low-level APIs correctly (well, hopefully,but that is what framework patches take care of after the fact).


That's not what I'm talking about here at all. When you use a method in the Win32 API (or its relatives) you end up going through at least two layers before you hit Native API. And even the Win32 API is at least one level above the "flavor of the day," whether it be MFC, C#, or whatever else.

This got so much worse in Vista that explorer.exe just uses the Native API directly. I'd hate to see that codebase.

And then let's talk about the internet APIs. Turns out maintaining a stable COM API over several generations of web technology isn't really feasible, so you can only trust about 60% of the documentation on MSDN when it comes to wininet, IE, etc.
 
2014-08-05 07:05:22 PM  
No. Not going to happen.

Apple is not going to switch laptops to ARM designs, simply because there are no ARM designs powerful enough, and there won't be for a long time, because they'll also need an ARM design that can replace the chips used in the iMac and the Mac Pro.

And, there is nobody who is designing an ARM chip that will scale to that high of performance. Apple isn't even close to spending as much R&D money on microprocessor design as Intel, and Apple doesn't have the capability to manufactur their own, while Intel has the best process technology out there. All  other chip foundries are frequently a step behind Intel. Sometimes, Intel is two steps ahead of everybody else.

Instruction decode is a miniscule part of chip design these days, and when you have to worry about managing cache heirarchies, out-of-order execution and scheduling, branch prediction, latency to the rest of the system, system interconnects, interconnects between cores, multi-threading, etc etc, instruction decode is rather insignificant.

I mean, the benefit of RISC was simpler instruction decode, and this much simpler decode didn't stop Intel (and AMD, at times) from taking the performance crowns from Sun, IBM, SGI/MIPS, DEC/Compaq, HP, or others.
 
2014-08-05 08:05:39 PM  
If only there was a recent example of a company trying to transition an OS between to architectures.  There is no reason to believe that moving Mac software to ARM will be any easier than moving Windows programs to ARM. There is also Google Chrome which runs on both but I don't really consider that an Operating System.
 
2014-08-05 08:16:34 PM  
Not this crap again.

These articles keep surfacing.
It's called hit whoring or click bait.
Stop supporting it.
 
2014-08-05 08:22:59 PM  

Herr Flick's Revenge: Not this crap again.

These articles keep surfacing.
It's called hit whoring or click bait.
Stop supporting it.


my favorite website?
 
2014-08-05 08:43:08 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Mr.Tangent: Obscene_CNN: Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.

Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.

Local processing power will be moot when everything is running in the iCloud.

Not for games, or data intensive apps,  or anything to sensitive to put on the cloud.


While I agree with that statement, you can't diminish Cupertino's ability to polish a turd.
 
2014-08-06 12:39:03 AM  

Mr.Tangent: Obscene_CNN: Mr.Tangent: Obscene_CNN: Well one thing this guy neglected to talk about is speed. And its speed where ARM falls flat on its face.

Also he stared that the 8086 is backward compatible with the 8088. This is incorrect the 8086 and 8088 are in the same family. The 8086 family was backward compatible with the 8080 processor.

Local processing power will be moot when everything is running in the iCloud.

Not for games, or data intensive apps,  or anything to sensitive to put on the cloud.

While I agree with that statement, you can't diminish Cupertino's ability to polish a turd.


They have only the finest esthetititititcians for their day spa attending porcines.

/tits
 
2014-08-06 09:21:07 AM  

Faddy: If only there was a recent example of a company trying to transition an OS between to architectures.  There is no reason to believe that moving Mac software to ARM will be any easier than moving Windows programs to ARM.


Are you kidding ? Apple is a master at this, they have successfully and almost seamlessly changed architectures not once but twice.  They switched from Motorola 68k to PowerPC, then from PowerPC to Intel x86. Both times with almost zero inconvenience to the end-user.
 
2014-08-06 11:38:23 AM  
This can only happen when it's no longer worth while for users to be able to simultaneously run any other X86 OS in a virtual machine.

Switching to a Mac is very easy when you don't have to give up anything to do so.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report