firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
carfac
Sep 12, 06:02 PM
I do not see the point... What does this do that anyone could possiblky need???
300 bones for a glorified wi-fi widget is way off base. It is going to have a LOT more added to be worth that. Of course, we are talking about Apple, so overcharge is the rule, not the exception.
For my money, it's gonna have to be a REAL media center, and there is no way THAT ios gonna happen for 3 bills. Tivo today announced a HD-PVR for 8- that price range is acceptible, but it's gonna have to be HD, PVR, tunner, alkl that stuff. This box, worthless to me.
300 bones for a glorified wi-fi widget is way off base. It is going to have a LOT more added to be worth that. Of course, we are talking about Apple, so overcharge is the rule, not the exception.
For my money, it's gonna have to be a REAL media center, and there is no way THAT ios gonna happen for 3 bills. Tivo today announced a HD-PVR for 8- that price range is acceptible, but it's gonna have to be HD, PVR, tunner, alkl that stuff. This box, worthless to me.
novagamer
Jul 13, 04:47 AM
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
Aw you just ruined his fun.:rolleyes:
I think he has that in a text document and just copies and pastes it at will to argue semantics in threads largely unconcerned with them... heh.
Bow down to the all knowing, condescending poster with the gay porn actor's name. :eek: :p
Aw you just ruined his fun.:rolleyes:
I think he has that in a text document and just copies and pastes it at will to argue semantics in threads largely unconcerned with them... heh.
Bow down to the all knowing, condescending poster with the gay porn actor's name. :eek: :p
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:22 AM
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 07:12 PM
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
powerbook911
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
I'll be buying this. No question. :)
AlphaDogg
Apr 5, 06:26 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 07:47 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
munkery
May 2, 01:38 PM
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
srxtr
Apr 20, 05:45 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:27 PM
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
It is NOT unethical to keep drivers for your own hardware and distribute them how you choose. Apple has an obligation to keep up with their own hardware and software. They have no moral or legal obligation to make drivers for any OS they don't want to. Is it frustrating? Yes, if you want to run Linux on your PowerBook. But in that situation, you have to know that Linux doesn't have mainstream support for tons of hardware, and nothing is stopping you from writing your own driver, except a lack of knowledge or time on how to do so. If you need assistance or technical information, join Apple's Developer program. That's exactly why it exists, and why I participate. If they don't want to port their software to another platform, they don't have to.
You might say that iTunes should be on Linux, and that it will make more money for Apple, so it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that someone violating the TOS is an ethical action. DVD Jon might want his iTunes on Linux, but he has no right to it. Like I've said previously, he can just as easily import the audio from CDs into Linux and stream purchased music over his network from a Windows or Mac machine with iTunes legally installed. Or, as it turns out, you can buy CrossoverOffice (or modify Wine yourself to avoid having to pay for it) and install iTunes that way. Those are legal alternatives to accomplishing what you want, and that's that.
Doing something you are specifically not supposed to do is NOT the same as not doing something you could do, but don't have to do.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
MorphingDragon
Apr 30, 04:34 AM
They are built in a way so they can work 24/7 for years without overheating. At home I use a dual Xeon setup. You know what's a Xeon right? So... if it's a server chip how come do I have it on my desktop PC???
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
Dumba$$
If you have Xeon Chips you'll have a Server or Workstation motherboard most likely with ECC RAM. Sorry dude, you have a workstation. :rolleyes:
gjkiii
May 9, 11:32 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 03:15 PM
OK, so you want a completely independent tablet that does not communicate with anyone or anything unless you want it to but can still be useful as is. I don't think you are going to enjoy the next decade. That world is being pushed aside by the connected future. So while you will be able to get the tablet you want, it won't be the tablet most people will want.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
hannahwildcat
Jun 27, 07:19 PM
Ok, so here's my wonderful story about the intelligence or lack thereof within this pitiful company known as ATT. When the Iphone 3G came out, I got the iPhone 2G. I was in Pullman, WA. There was no ATT store in Pullman, so I had to drive to Moscow, ID (about 8 miles). There, I found an ATT kiosk in a mall. So I asked the morons there what i needed to do to get the iPhone. They told me they would set my account up for me and give me the sim card, and then all i would have to do is take the sim card up to Spokane (75 Miles) and they would install the card and I was good to go. Little did I know they were incompetent and had set me up with an acct that would never be used. Ok, so here's part 2 of the story. Got to Spokane, they told me that I didn't need the sim card, just plug the phone into iTunes, and voila! it works. Well, it did work, for about a week... While i wasn't in Pullman. Then I came back from vacation in tacoma (mediocre signal at best) and i couldn't get **** for a signal in my own apt in pullman. A couple of months past, and finally i had had enough. Now for a while i had been getting 2 bills from att, didnt know why, but i always paid my bills online so i just paid them no mind. As it turns out, that first acct they set me up with had been incurring the regular monthly charges even though NO PHONE WAS EVER CONNECTED TO IT! I called ATT to disconnect the iPhone service and they told me about the other acct. they wanted me to pay not only the fees for the acct that i never used, but also the cancellation charge for both accts, even though if i cant get signal, i am supposed to be able to close the acct without the fee. The total would have been around $600. After going up about 3 lvls of management (people who were actually based in the united states and could speak english) they took off all but $100 of the cancellation fee from the iPhone acct.
ATT IS A LOAD OF S---EATERS WHO LIE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND HAVE THE WORST F---ING CUSTOMER SERVICE ON THE PLANET. I WILL NEVER EVER DEAL WITH THESE PIECE OF S--- HUMAN BEINGS EVER AGAIN.
A WORD TO APPLE - DON'T ACT LIKE 12 YEAR OLD GIRLS WHINING BECAUSE VERIZON WONT JUMP THROUGH YOUR HOOPS. CUT YOUR LOSSES AND GO WITH THE BEST OF THE BEST.
ATT IS A LOAD OF S---EATERS WHO LIE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND HAVE THE WORST F---ING CUSTOMER SERVICE ON THE PLANET. I WILL NEVER EVER DEAL WITH THESE PIECE OF S--- HUMAN BEINGS EVER AGAIN.
A WORD TO APPLE - DON'T ACT LIKE 12 YEAR OLD GIRLS WHINING BECAUSE VERIZON WONT JUMP THROUGH YOUR HOOPS. CUT YOUR LOSSES AND GO WITH THE BEST OF THE BEST.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:47 AM
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 tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
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 tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 09:39 PM
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
"Radical Islam" (actually followed by mainstream sects like salafi and wahhabi so not very radical but rather an orthodox reading of Islamic sources) hasn't changed from the 7th century, and in the 7th century it was nothing like Christianity. It's even less like modern Christianity.
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
There really is no comparison. It's like comparing almonds and plums, they're the same genus but different species and you wouldn't think they were the same genus either, having tasted either of them.
"Radical Islam" (actually followed by mainstream sects like salafi and wahhabi so not very radical but rather an orthodox reading of Islamic sources) hasn't changed from the 7th century, and in the 7th century it was nothing like Christianity. It's even less like modern Christianity.
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
There really is no comparison. It's like comparing almonds and plums, they're the same genus but different species and you wouldn't think they were the same genus either, having tasted either of them.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
iJohnHenry
Mar 11, 07:20 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
ugahairydawgs
Mar 18, 08:03 AM
How exactly are they able to tell if someone is tethering or not?
mdntcallr
Sep 26, 02:28 PM
I don't know what apple would plan with this
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
No comments:
Post a Comment