milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
gugy
Sep 20, 01:38 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
yeah, that looks cool.
I am seriously considering buying one. Plus get an external antena and get HDTV. sweet.:D
But I would still keeping my dishnetwork DVR. I think it will take time to completely get rid off any cable/dvr package.
The fact that the computer has to be on everytime I want to watch or record a show is somewhat a hassle.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
yeah, that looks cool.
I am seriously considering buying one. Plus get an external antena and get HDTV. sweet.:D
But I would still keeping my dishnetwork DVR. I think it will take time to completely get rid off any cable/dvr package.
The fact that the computer has to be on everytime I want to watch or record a show is somewhat a hassle.
carmenodie
Oct 7, 12:02 PM
You notice that Google's stock is way up! As of this writing it is now trading at $507.29 a share and it is 10-7-09 and 12:56pm. Look, Android is going into all these phones like a who** not b/c it is some supper grand OS but to get Google's share prices up. And believe me it will be ad laced up the a**.
So, is this god news for consumers? Hell no!
It is good news for wall street and stock holders.
Android=lots of ads to plague you with.
So, is this god news for consumers? Hell no!
It is good news for wall street and stock holders.
Android=lots of ads to plague you with.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 20, 05:23 PM
How about use some of that money to get iTunes/App Store login fixed up. Many reporting it down like me on Twitter.
EagerDragon
Jul 12, 12:23 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 10:41 AM
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.
I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah
really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.
But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.
Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.
So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
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.
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
blueflame
Aug 29, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
EricNau
Sep 20, 07:30 PM
Steve Jobs claimed the iTV "completed the picture," but it does nothing of the sort (based on already revealed features). In reality there is still a hole large enough to fly a 747 through.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 06:17 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here? We got sidetracked by a few people making generalizations about atheists but not adding much substance.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 01:04 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 12:27 AM
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:32 AM
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
desdomg
Mar 18, 04:57 PM
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
Ah, but isn't that the heart of the matter - shouldn't you have the choice to be to go to another cheaper provider? At the moment we have expensive and free - no wonder P2P is such a success.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 01:04 PM
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
1. In terms of marketshare. That's precisely what I meant. It's quite understood. FACT.
2. But android is helping. There's shouldn't be a doubt. Maybe Apple says NO to that because of brand quality OR Apple cannot afford to lose that profit; whatever is the case, android helps with the help of the carriers or vice versa. FACT.
3. HTC's quarterly report. Google it. FACT.
4. But still, its a ripoff. FACT.
5. True FACT.
6. FACT FACT.
7. Again, nitpicking things. FACT is a FACT.
8. FACTy FACT.
9. Yes is a FACT.
10. No, they are not. Go anywhere; youtube, MR, Engadget, TC; they are really pathetic and disgusting; not android users, android fanboys. FACT.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
FACT. :mad:
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
1. In terms of marketshare. That's precisely what I meant. It's quite understood. FACT.
2. But android is helping. There's shouldn't be a doubt. Maybe Apple says NO to that because of brand quality OR Apple cannot afford to lose that profit; whatever is the case, android helps with the help of the carriers or vice versa. FACT.
3. HTC's quarterly report. Google it. FACT.
4. But still, its a ripoff. FACT.
5. True FACT.
6. FACT FACT.
7. Again, nitpicking things. FACT is a FACT.
8. FACTy FACT.
9. Yes is a FACT.
10. No, they are not. Go anywhere; youtube, MR, Engadget, TC; they are really pathetic and disgusting; not android users, android fanboys. FACT.
You forgot
1. Battlestar Galactica (remake) is the best sci fi show of all time (FACT)
2. Toaster Strudels are better than Pop Tarts (FACT)
3. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunman (FACT)
4. Brian Tong from CNET is worthless (FACT)
5. SC2 is the best competitive RTS (FACT)
6. Green is the new pink (FACT)
7. Lady Ga Ga was NOT born that way (FACT)
8. Republicans are heartless (FACT)
9. Democrats promise everything and never deliver (FACT)
10. OJ did it (FACT)
FACT. :mad:
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
balamw
Apr 10, 08:08 AM
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not?
No, they are not. This report is for the Jan-March '11 quarter. Christmas sales were reflected in the Oct-Dec '10 quarter.
