leekohler
Apr 23, 08:42 AM
Hey- Macs "just work" right? Well, a lot of us apply that motto to our lives. For most of us, religion does not "just work". But people can believe what they want.
ChazUK
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it.
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
dyler
Oct 7, 06:49 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
charliehustle
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:41 PM
@eric_n_dfw
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
Perhaps you should read what you quote:
legal/illegal and right/wrong do not have to line up with each other in the real world.
I know this isn't directed at me, but you're right. Right/wrong and legal/illegal aren't matching binaries. However, all things that are illegal are wrong. Whether they are simultaneously right (that is, morally justified) depends on the issue. Some things that are legal can be wrong while being right as well. In extreme cases, the morally right thing can be in direct conflict with the law, warranting illegal action. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, something that is "right" while simultaneously against the law is an issue that needs to be dealt with through legitimate change within the system.
That's why democracies exist--to give the people the ability to change the law and prevent the law from infringing on individual or group rights. The law, in this case, is not one of the extreme situations and there is not legitimate harm/reason to break the law except that it's easier and more convenient. There is no moral offense being committed by the law, and undermining the rule of law is not a justifiable offense over something as trivial as music use rights. In other words, it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD) or to change the law to allow it (unnecessary here).
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
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.
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
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.
davelanger
Apr 28, 11:56 AM
This is because they have continued to put time and money in to iOS and not Mac. They have been lazy and done practically done nothing with desktops and their notebooks. They need to start putting emphasis on to Macs now.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
xlambodog
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
To start off, I do not want to get intimate with the moral aspect of this. Everyone has their opinion.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
digestive system diagram
digestive system diagram quiz.
frog digestive system diagram
Heart+diagram+for+kids+to+
digestive system diagram quiz.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
robotx21
Sep 20, 01:38 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
D*I*S_Frontman
Oct 10, 08:34 AM
I love my Macs. I love OS X. Having a reliable machine running unobtrusively and intuitively makes me more productive and lets me enjoy the process more.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:42 PM
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
This is not really true. You need to know the software to make it do what you want to do. You don't need to be an expert certified user, but you need to know your way around.
This is not really true. You need to know the software to make it do what you want to do. You don't need to be an expert certified user, but you need to know your way around.
Howdr
Mar 18, 09:26 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
Diagram, relatively
Urethra basic diagram label a
pig digestive system diagram
digestive system diagram
digestive system diagram and
Reacent Post
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:44 PM
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
Most Islamic countries are not inhabitable by homosexuals or religious minorities, your mileage may vary.
The biggest muslim population right now is Indonesia, and they tried banning Christians from using Allah to describe their God. They're also trying to ban the Ahmadiyah sect...
I don't think France or Britain are responsible for Iran's strict implementation of Islamic law and ruthless persecution of dissidents, and to claim that they are responsible is insulting to Muslims because it implies they're far too reactionary to deal with anything using Reason. Just like people who want to ban qur'an burnings and blasphemy because they're afraid of how muslims might react. Are Muslims animals who are so easily goaded? No, they're human beings so they should be expected to act responsibly and not go on rampages at the slightest provocation.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:05 AM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
>>> Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans.
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
Those that think this is a Tivo Killer don't understand economics, or why people buy Tivos.
Fort this to even be in the BALLPARK, it needs a Hard Dive. Needs to be Hi Def. That ain't happening at a 299.99 price tag. Still, people love the Tivo interface, so to get them, it's gonna have to offer MORE than Tivo- like an optical drive, a couple tuners. No WAY that is in this box and "not discolsed yet" at 299.
Tivo Killer. That's a killer joke, or Appleboy dreaming. Not close to reality.
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years.
For a superior discussion of all these points visit CNET News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-6114835.html?tag=tb
DJO
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:19 AM
It's true. You see the video, you have doubts. And if someone says "You didn't see what you just saw",
Its not a great comfort.
Its not a great comfort.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 12:08 PM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips?
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
1. As far as the whole shift thing, it works the exact same way.
2. Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
3. Themeing is a bit more difficult, but you can use things like Geektool (http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/) and Liteicon (http://www.freemacsoft.net/LiteIcon/) and DockLibrary (http://www.dativestudios.com/docklibrary/), just to name a few things. You just have to do some googling to find more themeing stuff.
4. Quitting applications. CMD+Q. Easy.
5. I haven't figured out a fix for the maximising. That is my only complaint, but they're gonna change it in OS X Lion.
6. Add/Remove Programs - an application called AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)
I hope that cleared up all the issues you had... If you have any more, lay 'em on me!
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
1. As far as the whole shift thing, it works the exact same way.
2. Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
3. Themeing is a bit more difficult, but you can use things like Geektool (http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/) and Liteicon (http://www.freemacsoft.net/LiteIcon/) and DockLibrary (http://www.dativestudios.com/docklibrary/), just to name a few things. You just have to do some googling to find more themeing stuff.
4. Quitting applications. CMD+Q. Easy.
5. I haven't figured out a fix for the maximising. That is my only complaint, but they're gonna change it in OS X Lion.
6. Add/Remove Programs - an application called AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)
I hope that cleared up all the issues you had... If you have any more, lay 'em on me!
armandocerna
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
0 comments:
Post a Comment