FSUSem1noles
Mar 18, 08:13 AM
Bye, Bye, MyWi and TetherMe...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 11:23 AM
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality? It obviously threatens them in some personal way. The Bible is filled with "sins" that they pay no attention to.
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality? It obviously threatens them in some personal way. The Bible is filled with "sins" that they pay no attention to.
gugy
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I think it's a great device.
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
The big question is about if the wireless transmission is good enough.
I had Airtunes and it was horrible using it from 40 feet from my computer to my living room. I don't have brick walls.
I guess it's safe now to buy Elgato use as PVR and transmit the show wirelessly to ITV hookup up to my TV.
That's sweet!:)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Yamcha
May 2, 10:30 AM
Sure it is Malware, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat to Mac users, a decent amount of Mac users are not very knowledgable when it comes to computers, I can see a lot of people going ahead with this install, why? well it says MacDefender, people could confuse it for an anti-virus software, so yeah I mean its entirely possible that someone could install this..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
Anyway, it's to be expected, infact when Mac OS does become more popular I think we will clearly find viruses, malware and spyware, that day OSX will become a lot like Windows.. Even anti-viruses today for Windows are not able to get rid of every virus, you have to constantly do updates, even then theres always new viruses, and your not always going to be protected..
But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon..
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 08:47 PM
Who really gives a damn?
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
MacRumors
Jul 14, 02:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:53 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
firestarter
Mar 13, 11:50 AM
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
geerlingguy
Aug 29, 11:00 AM
I think Apple's done a pretty good job, at least from a non-insider perspective. And the fact that they are exteremely open and friendly sharing their environmental information (http://www.apple.com/environment/) is something to consider as well. It is not always easy for the public to find out about a particular company's information from their website.
Obviously, though, Apple is a corporation, and, like most others, they will many times sacrifice environmental standards to save costs. All major companies (at least in the U.S.) do it�no matter how 'hip' or 'environment-friendly' they may seem. It's an outcome of consumerism.
Obviously, though, Apple is a corporation, and, like most others, they will many times sacrifice environmental standards to save costs. All major companies (at least in the U.S.) do it�no matter how 'hip' or 'environment-friendly' they may seem. It's an outcome of consumerism.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:42 AM
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
recursivejon
Mar 20, 02:23 PM
If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:16 AM
Have we established that turning off location services actually disables this "feature"?
No, I misunderstood what he was referring to. After reading more into it, it's different than the locations feature on there. Instead of using it like a GPS, it actually seems to track based off tower triangulation.
No, I misunderstood what he was referring to. After reading more into it, it's different than the locations feature on there. Instead of using it like a GPS, it actually seems to track based off tower triangulation.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:28 AM
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
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.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
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.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
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.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
danredwing
Oct 7, 11:26 AM
I don't mean to be rude here. I would never claim that Android isn't a good, interesting and open platform, but I've used both and will definitely say that the Android Platform is no iPhone. It feels like software in a shell and is missing the elegant integration of software and hardware that Apple and the iPhone are known for.
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
There may be more of them out there at some point because they are easier to get and work with more carriers and there are more companies making their version, so through competition, the prices will be lower.....sound familiar?
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I wonder if those people who complain about iPads not being included in smart phone market share will also complain that the iPad is included in pc sales market share?
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.