SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:01 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
snoopy07
May 5, 02:49 PM
Until at&t gets competition from other provider with the iphone things won�t change. Right now if you want the iphone in the US its at&t or jailbrake it to t-mobile. At&t won�t care because if you want the iphone you need them, but with other carriers it will be different. They will have to maintain a great network and service or will take our iphone to the other carrier. This competition is needed and it�s the only way we the customers will get what we need.
:apple:
:apple:
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:15 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:33 PM
Really,
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used by 32 bit processes.
Bugs are not flaws in a security model. They have nothing to do with "Unix security" being better. Stop hammering that point, it's not even valid.
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used by 32 bit processes.
Bugs are not flaws in a security model. They have nothing to do with "Unix security" being better. Stop hammering that point, it's not even valid.
frogger2020
Apr 5, 11:02 PM
The thing that bugs me the most is that Windows Explorer is so much better than Finder.
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
sbarton
Jul 12, 12:07 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.
Eidorian
Oct 26, 10:31 PM
Exactly
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?
darkwing
Aug 29, 11:51 AM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)
Mord
Jul 12, 05:00 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
Sticman
Aug 28, 01:13 PM
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem..
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
.jpg "Men; zac efron hairstyle")
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:34 AM
Also the time of day there.. after 3pm..
portishead
Apr 12, 11:02 PM
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
javajedi
Oct 10, 06:45 PM
This weekend I'm going to try to vectorize it with the Altivec and make it available for you guys. Frankly I don't know how simple or difficult this will be, but I'm going to look into it. As far as the code itself.. well.. it's very basic. Not only was it not vectorized for the G4, it wasn't vectorized for the P4. If anything the other platforms are at a software disadvatage because it's being ran under Java. The Mac OS X version is native code.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
I think what we have learned from all this is that the G4 has a *REAL* problem with integer and double precision floating point. Ofcourse going to Altivec would bypass these registers and help considerably. But that just goes to show you without Altivec code you are far behind everything else.
Once again I'll see what I can do about an Altivec version, it should be very intresting indeed.
EDIT: I should also note that your 500MP didn't benifit from the extra processor, all of the math is being done in the main event loop.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:07 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
LumbermanSVO
Mar 26, 09:45 PM
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
Anuba
Jun 7, 07:35 AM
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not).
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
rxse7en
Oct 12, 03:20 PM
Dammit! Dell just dropped the price of the 24" LCD today to $679. That's a hell of a deal for a 24", I think I may have to pull the trigger on one tonight as I really need some screen real estate to work in--this is getting ridiculous working on mags on 15" MBP and a craptastic 17" LCD I stole from my wife. Then, if they drop the prices on the 24s and 30s on Black Friday I'll buy another one.
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
mixel
Apr 10, 06:35 AM
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
Make gaming more interactive and inclusive? What?
Sofar Apple have shown no signs of making Nintendo or Sony inferior or insignificant. If they "change gaming" in a linear progression from how they've been doing it so far it would be a MASSIVE regression for gaming. I would not be welcoming them as gaming overlords.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
Agreed, but one could say the same about most of the things you wrote in your post. Sony buy Nintendo? Ummmm.. Sony and Nintendo are pretty relevant outside of blindfolded Mac fan circles.
Make gaming more interactive and inclusive? What?
Sofar Apple have shown no signs of making Nintendo or Sony inferior or insignificant. If they "change gaming" in a linear progression from how they've been doing it so far it would be a MASSIVE regression for gaming. I would not be welcoming them as gaming overlords.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
Agreed, but one could say the same about most of the things you wrote in your post. Sony buy Nintendo? Ummmm.. Sony and Nintendo are pretty relevant outside of blindfolded Mac fan circles.
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
redkamel
Apr 13, 12:54 AM
just want to throw something out there on the color correction argument...(I dont do video work, but photo)
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
Implementing color correction into FCP shouldn't have any bearing on a more advanced tool like Color. Aperture has a lot of "advanced tools" that work fine for many projects...but to get nitty gritty I need plug ins and photoshop.
I would imagine Apple is adding color correction so people who just need basic color editing don't need to go buy something big and complicated like Color. I can edit out dust spots, trash and "could" make black and white shots on Aperture..which is fine for parties, landscapes and such.. But for portraits, wedding shots, stuff I care about I use plugins, and if I need layer masks and such its off to photoshop land!
I don't see what the hubub about color correction is.
I'd be more interested to hear about FCP in broadcast vs film though. Sounds interesting!
