Glass!
May 2, 10:49 AM
Using Google Images as an attack vector has become very popular recently, it's a problem on Windows too (http://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/gx2i8/google_images_becoming_a_hub_of_virus_activity/).
They're just using the age-old "Your computer has a virus" scareware trick that has been around on Windows for years.
Safari treating zips as safe is very broken, but the user still has to manually open the file and install it, and enter their credit card details... Are the people replying to the threads in the OP really that stupid?
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
There is malware for every platform -- from Windows to Haiku to Minix, therefore qualifying the difference between malware and viruses is neccessary. For example, this malware for most Unix platforms that will delete your homefolder, you just have to copy it into a text file, give it executable permissions and run it:
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf $HOME/
It's malware, but it sure isn't a virus.
They're just using the age-old "Your computer has a virus" scareware trick that has been around on Windows for years.
Safari treating zips as safe is very broken, but the user still has to manually open the file and install it, and enter their credit card details... Are the people replying to the threads in the OP really that stupid?
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
There is malware for every platform -- from Windows to Haiku to Minix, therefore qualifying the difference between malware and viruses is neccessary. For example, this malware for most Unix platforms that will delete your homefolder, you just have to copy it into a text file, give it executable permissions and run it:
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf $HOME/
It's malware, but it sure isn't a virus.
Multimedia
Oct 8, 10:30 AM
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that. In the Gelsinger Keynote he calls it "Multi-Threaded Workloads".
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time. Very exciting.
Also thanks for the link to all those sessions from the IDF. Fantastic to be able to "attend" all of them. I'm stoked and looking forward to watching them ALL. I love all the new Intel self-promotional videos. Intel is happening and hip!
And no premium for that "ninth" processor when you buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown after all bringing the total cost to $3,699 plus ram. So now I hope there will be TWO new lines in the Processor section of the Customize Your Mac page of the online Store:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
I now think I will opt for the 2.66GHz 8-core for $3,699 if Apple will offer it for sale.
The first 8 being a little over $400 each. With the 2.66 you get 2.64GHz more total power so it's like getting a ninth processor for +$400 IOW for no premium. Maybe Apple will only offer the 2.66GHz Clovertown so as not to confuse the buyers.
Wonder if the 2.66GHz Clovertown introduces heat issues under the hood.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that. In the Gelsinger Keynote he calls it "Multi-Threaded Workloads".
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time. Very exciting.
Also thanks for the link to all those sessions from the IDF. Fantastic to be able to "attend" all of them. I'm stoked and looking forward to watching them ALL. I love all the new Intel self-promotional videos. Intel is happening and hip!
And no premium for that "ninth" processor when you buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown after all bringing the total cost to $3,699 plus ram. So now I hope there will be TWO new lines in the Processor section of the Customize Your Mac page of the online Store:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
I now think I will opt for the 2.66GHz 8-core for $3,699 if Apple will offer it for sale.
The first 8 being a little over $400 each. With the 2.66 you get 2.64GHz more total power so it's like getting a ninth processor for +$400 IOW for no premium. Maybe Apple will only offer the 2.66GHz Clovertown so as not to confuse the buyers.
Wonder if the 2.66GHz Clovertown introduces heat issues under the hood.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
I absolutely agree with you; there is no compulsion for anyone to be Catholic (well, that's not strictly true, since people are often forced to accept Catholicism as children, before they are capable of making the decision for themselves).
But that doesn't in any way imply that the position of the Catholic church on this issue (and so, so, so many others) isn't hateful and discriminatory.
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
I absolutely agree with you; there is no compulsion for anyone to be Catholic (well, that's not strictly true, since people are often forced to accept Catholicism as children, before they are capable of making the decision for themselves).
But that doesn't in any way imply that the position of the Catholic church on this issue (and so, so, so many others) isn't hateful and discriminatory.
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
AtomBoy
Oct 8, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
[B]Who really gives a damn?
Ruger .44 Magnum Bisley Super
my Dan Wesson 44 magnum,
Magtech 44 Magnum 240 GR
.44 Magnum ammunition.
will include 44 mag ammo
Maximum firepower ammo.
the .44 Magnum cartridge,
44 Magnum Accident gt;gt; Four
44 magnum revolver bullets.
44 mag ammo MAKE OFFER !!SOLD!
Left to right: .460 Samp;W Magnum
.44 Magnum (image courtesy
To make ammo for it
44 Magnum
Reacent Post
[B]Who really gives a damn?
mixel
Apr 10, 06:27 AM
1. Define a proper game. I think there are a lot of proper games on iOS. But I think I get your point. Do you mean hardcore? Halo, elder scrolls, call of duty etc.
I sort-of mean hardcore, though I think thats a wonky label too.. There are quite a lot of "hardcore" RPGs on iOS already. I mean games with decent budgets and a sizeable team working on them. The vast majority of the >$100 billion games industry works that way.. Metal Gears, Silent Hills, God of Wars, Halos, Resistances, Fables, Killzones, Gears Of Wars, Half-lifes, Portals, L4Ds, Elder Scrolls, Witchers, Crysises, Zeldas, Shadow Of The Colluseses, Resident Evils.. The hardware is more than capable of having incredible titles, but the devs just wont give it a proper go. What are our true iOS classics? Any dedicated console at this point in its lifespan would have a load of them.
It was neat when we got the Dead Space spin-off but the big boys have really only dipped their toes into iOS without truly committing yet.
I do agree though there are a lot of proper games on iOS, just not high profile ones that would attract many outsiders. I love small and indie games and the experimentation they offer.. Its not a failure to not have the big support IMO it's just playing a different ball game.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Not to traditional gamers really. Apple aren't going to buy either company, and both companies are still offering a whole tier of game quality above what iOS currently offers. Only once the developers start seeing iOS as a real standalone gaming platform and not a curious aside for drumming up publicity for their true AAA titles will it appeal to most gamers.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40635/Global-games-market-worth-over-100bn - tbh devs seem much more keen on funnelling development resources into supporting Facebook/social gaming than iOS, which is pretty sad. Look how small the mobile section is compared to others. :(
I'd love to see Apple's future plans regarding the games industry.
I sort-of mean hardcore, though I think thats a wonky label too.. There are quite a lot of "hardcore" RPGs on iOS already. I mean games with decent budgets and a sizeable team working on them. The vast majority of the >$100 billion games industry works that way.. Metal Gears, Silent Hills, God of Wars, Halos, Resistances, Fables, Killzones, Gears Of Wars, Half-lifes, Portals, L4Ds, Elder Scrolls, Witchers, Crysises, Zeldas, Shadow Of The Colluseses, Resident Evils.. The hardware is more than capable of having incredible titles, but the devs just wont give it a proper go. What are our true iOS classics? Any dedicated console at this point in its lifespan would have a load of them.
It was neat when we got the Dead Space spin-off but the big boys have really only dipped their toes into iOS without truly committing yet.
I do agree though there are a lot of proper games on iOS, just not high profile ones that would attract many outsiders. I love small and indie games and the experimentation they offer.. Its not a failure to not have the big support IMO it's just playing a different ball game.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Not to traditional gamers really. Apple aren't going to buy either company, and both companies are still offering a whole tier of game quality above what iOS currently offers. Only once the developers start seeing iOS as a real standalone gaming platform and not a curious aside for drumming up publicity for their true AAA titles will it appeal to most gamers.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40635/Global-games-market-worth-over-100bn - tbh devs seem much more keen on funnelling development resources into supporting Facebook/social gaming than iOS, which is pretty sad. Look how small the mobile section is compared to others. :(
I'd love to see Apple's future plans regarding the games industry.
jwdsail
Sep 21, 10:34 AM
It has HDMI output.. One way or another, it'll output HD (720p?1080p???)
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 10:21 PM
No way. Apple will continue to release new hardware and updates as the iPhone continues through it's lifecycle. It is a recognized brand and like it or not, the control Apple exerts over the user experience maintains it's value.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
OllyW
Mar 13, 07:26 AM
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
http://boingboing.net/img/Natori%20Yagawahama%20Before-After.JPG
http://boingboing.net/img/Natori%20Yagawahama%20Before-After.JPG
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
Benjy91
May 2, 10:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Most Malware requires direct user intervention, people are idiots.
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Most Malware requires direct user intervention, people are idiots.
kingtj
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
I can't speak for everyone, but I found myself torn between clicking to rate it positive, or to rate it negative. Why? Not strictly because I think there was anything wrong with someone from Apple participating in this project and contributing.... But more because in a larger, overall sense, I think the whole "bullying" thing is being blown out of proportion in recent years.
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Basically, it's just the latest crusade for folks to take up, as yet another "we've gotta do anything to save the children!" move.
I'm a 40 year old adult, but I remember clearly struggling with lots of being bullied from the time I was in 1st. or 2nd. grade through the first half of high-school. I was a kid who didn't really fit in with any of the norms. I didn't like organized sports, and was really bad at playing them. I was really into science-fiction/fantasy when that was decidedly "uncool" to show any interest in. And I didn't have any clue, or care, about dressing in whichever clothing styles were considered "in style".
There was a point, during my early high-school years where I even thought about "ending it all" on a daily basis. (Only reason I didn't go through with it is because I think I was too chicken and afraid of pain to attempt it.)
Even given that background? I still can't see how all this "anti-bullying" nonsense will accomplish much? I know in my situation, every time teachers or faculty were called upon to try to "do something" about my problems, it only made matters worse. It's part of human nature that kids have mean streaks, and the only thing that's guaranteed to make a bully stop bullying you is to stand up for yourself, to his/her face. Asking OTHER people to solve the problem just escalates it, most of the time. (The faculty or teachers or even police can't guard a kid 100% of the time. Eventually, the kid(s) harassing him/her are going to corner the kid in a place where the parental figures aren't able to intervene, and it's going to get ugly -- especially since now it's about "payback" for getting those authority figures involved.)
Only 2 things ever remedied my situation. #1 was fighting back, punching a kid square in the jaw and sending him to the nurse's office, when he started chasing after me on the school playground. I earned a TON of respect that day and a whole lot of people who used to harass me backed off after that. #2 was getting older, along with my peers, and all of us simply growing out of that phase where being different was perceived as a negative.
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
Funkymonk
May 2, 09:08 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
I'z scared :(
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
No one has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
Bosunsfate
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
I would make the same quess as well.
Trying to get the QT stream, but overloaded right now.
I would make the same quess as well.
Trying to get the QT stream, but overloaded right now.
bankshot
Sep 28, 01:43 PM
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
Sure, because script writing, voice acting, scene generation, and character animation only take an hour or two per movie... :rolleyes: ;)
Sure, because script writing, voice acting, scene generation, and character animation only take an hour or two per movie... :rolleyes: ;)
nagromme
Mar 18, 12:54 PM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Obscurity IS a factor that helps Mac users. The point is that good, secure design is ALSO a factor. But DRM file distribution doesn't relate to OS security/privacy anyway.
Anyway... you still have to BUY the song to use this hack.
Keleko
Apr 20, 06:46 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:47 PM
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
Ditto stem cells. :)
Ditto stem cells. :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:08 PM
Most of Punjab belongs to Pakistan, not India. But yes, in the Indian part of Punjab, I'm sure that most honour-killings are not within Muslim families.
Hence I suggest that it is not purely religion based.
Hence I suggest that it is not purely religion based.
0 comments:
Post a Comment