javajedi
Oct 9, 09:34 PM
Alex, thank you for setting the record straight. I am so sick and tired of hearing the over and over highly fallacious arguments. In many ways these ppl are worse than Windows bigots. They *think* they are educated but aren't; at least Windows bigots don't pretend.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:22 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
bruinsrme
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Sherman
Oct 13, 01:46 PM
Another rumor I've heard going around is one of Intels Pentium 5.
We all know about the amazing 4.7Ghz P4 but it's actually not that much faster than a 2.5Ghz P4 because they added so many steps to get up to that clock speed.
In the P5 they tried to stop this troubling trend and found out, they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps.
Amusing...
We all know about the amazing 4.7Ghz P4 but it's actually not that much faster than a 2.5Ghz P4 because they added so many steps to get up to that clock speed.
In the P5 they tried to stop this troubling trend and found out, they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps.
Amusing...
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
It's not that easy to fit in. Sophomore year I lost a lot of weight and kept it off for about a year. Looking at pictures now, I wasn't fat during that time. But I still got picked on for being fat. I got called fat by guys who actually WERE fat.
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
Alot of similar comments are missing the point...all these examples of bullying are age old, and as such have alot of positive examples of future success and how to combat them.
Osama in Laden dead graphic.
osama in laden dead shirt,
Osama in Laden Dead,
osama in laden dead body.
Osama Bin Laden Dead Picture
Man Osama Bin Laden Dead
Osama in Laden: Dead or Alive
Osama Bin Laden Dead Inside.
Osama Bin Laden — the world#39;s
Is Osama Bin Laden Dead,
Osama Bin Laden dead,
Osama Bin Laden is Dead.
osama in laden dead body.
Osama in Laden: Dead or Alive
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
Alot of similar comments are missing the point...all these examples of bullying are age old, and as such have alot of positive examples of future success and how to combat them.
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
milo
Jul 13, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
CIA
Apr 13, 12:34 AM
If it's on the App store how do you deal with volume licenses? My station has 5 seats (and growing), and each seat is a different MobileMe account (Everyone working there has their own account, makes mail and such easier.)
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
kuwisdelu
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
I don't claim to know anything at all about professional video editing. I only listened to the live feed. And I can say that the FCP pros at NAB sounded like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Peace
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
soooo.....milo....:)
Looks like the only thing I had wrong was the hard drive eh? ;)
But it looks like a little of what we were both talking about..
We'll call it even eh? :)
Looks like the only thing I had wrong was the hard drive eh? ;)
But it looks like a little of what we were both talking about..
We'll call it even eh? :)
tempusfugit
Dec 3, 11:06 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
needthephone
Oct 8, 07:00 AM
No, sorry.
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
In three years time my new phone os will be number 1.
And Zunes will be the number 1 MP3 player
England will win the World Cup
Cars will run on water and out of the exhaust will pour a stream of pure molten gold. Fluffy white bunny rabbits will follow the cars collect the gold and post the driver back ingots to store in their garages.
Everyone will be paid a minimum wage of a million of pound.
Finally they will admit that Swine Flu was the biggest over reaction ever made by the WHO and the world's governments.
Wars will end and man will live in harmony for ever more
The end, and we all lived happily ever after.
oh yes the iphone is still the number one smart phone....
kingtj
Sep 26, 11:23 AM
I think he was probably just trying to say the same thing I've been saying about my new Mac Pro too. The OS and apps need to do some catching-up so we can fully utilize what we paid for!
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 05:38 PM
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
OK, believe what you want but you must be watching a different ShowTime presentation and reading different reviews than I have been reading. Your discription is just not factual.
Everything I have seen describes the iTV as a souped up airport extreme that uses FrontRow to remote control an iTunes streaming device (i.e. computer) on the network. The product fits nicely in the model SJ has of a computer centric universe or digital hub. The use of the hard drive is most likely for cache to buffer the stream on an unstable 80211 connection.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 12:04 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
<high five>
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
GGJstudios
May 4, 02:59 PM
You're operating based on assumptions that because it hasn't happened in a meaningful way that it cannot happen and I think that is a false sense of security paramount to emotional fanaticism.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 10:07 AM
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.