GGJstudios
May 2, 02:51 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs ...
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
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.
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
deconai
Aug 30, 09:53 AM
A few years ago in college, my Geology professor (he works at NASA developing new energy technologies and teaches during the Summer as a side job) told us that Mother Nature is actually the largest contributor to greenhouse gases through the release of methane attributed to volacones. In fact, one volcano puts out more methane gas than the entire USA. Apparently humans are only responsible for a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gases found in the natural atmosphere.
Face it, global warming is a buzz phrase quickly falling out of fashion. The temperature changes we are experiencing are part of a cycle, nothing more.
The real problem that humans create is the rapid consumption of the earth's natural resources. We need to remember to recriprocate this consumption with preservation.
Face it, global warming is a buzz phrase quickly falling out of fashion. The temperature changes we are experiencing are part of a cycle, nothing more.
The real problem that humans create is the rapid consumption of the earth's natural resources. We need to remember to recriprocate this consumption with preservation.
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
This is what iMovie after iMovie '06 should have been, if only because it has a PROPER FRICKIN' TIMELINE!
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
Was really hoping for $199, but $299 isn't bad. I might just upgrade from iMovie '06 (I'm not really a 'pro' editor, but I love my timelines!).
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 09:58 PM
Can you cite anything verified scientifically?
Maybe I should post part two of the video about what happened at Lourdes. I meant to do that. So here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1jhs0NzUbQ&feature=related).
2011 Mercedes CL63 AMG / CL65
Mercedes CL63 AMG - Front
Mercedes CL63 AMG Short Term
2010 Mercedes CL63 AMG
2011 Mercedes CL63 AMG
2010 Mercedes CL63 AMG
mercedes cl63 amg and cl65 amg
2008 Mercedes CL63 AMG
2008 Mercedes CL63 AMG
2008 Mercedes CL63 AMG Lease
Mercedes CL63 AMG Car Lease
Mercedes CL63 AMG Lease
Maybe I should post part two of the video about what happened at Lourdes. I meant to do that. So here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1jhs0NzUbQ&feature=related).
iMeowbot
Sep 26, 12:01 AM
But seriously how many cores does anyone REALLY need?
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
~Shard~
Nov 1, 01:20 PM
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
Evidently you haven't read the myriad of posts in this thread regarding multi-threaded workflows... :rolleyes: :cool:
Evidently you haven't read the myriad of posts in this thread regarding multi-threaded workflows... :rolleyes: :cool:
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:49 AM
The ad at the top is calling us out.
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
>>I'm referring to an ad that says "Learn grammar punctuation."
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
jmadlena
Oct 7, 02:22 PM
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 01:06 PM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:17 PM
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:37 PM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Multimedia
Oct 31, 10:21 AM
My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
marmotmammal
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
A lot of speculation on this thread. I realize we're all impatient for more info. Apple said FCP X is a rewrite from the ground up. When that happens, it's a like a newborn, got to nurture it.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
FCP X is 64-bit, the Suite isn't. FCP X is the future, with Lion and Thunderbolt, maybe an end to Rosetta and legacy apps. Sometimes got to dump the old to make way for the new.
Some folks might not like FCP X, stay with FCP 6 or 7. Apple (and anybody else who rewrites) takes big chances. Maybe some users will bail, go to A**** or A***. Some users will stick it out, ride along with FCP X from the inception and see where it goes. Maybe it'll get bigger, become a toddler and beyond.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Backtothemac:
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
Most of the major power sources in use today come with major safety/environmental risks. Nuclear is in some ways potentially the most risky. However, people will continue to use it because it works.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
We are only as safe as the weakest nuclear power plant, and some of the old Soviet designs still operating are truly scary. But I see a discussion over whether or not to use nuclear power as being 60 years too late - nuclear power is here to stay, due to pressure to satisfy civil power demands that will require them to remain in operation and even expand in numbers. At this point in time renewable energy sources are producing only a fraction of the energy they must produce if we are to start decommissioning nuclear plants.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 04:16 AM
Overclocked my Athlon 1.4GHz Tbird to 1.522GHz, benchmark results (under C#, which was fastest) did an average of 7390 milliseconds (7.39 seconds). w00t!
Gotta love overclocking.
Gotta love overclocking.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 11:17 PM
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:20 PM
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
damnyooneek
Oct 7, 06:14 PM
its going to happen since its so open and so many brands are putting it into their phones.
No comments:
Post a Comment