nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
AJ Muni
Jul 11, 10:00 PM
WOW if this is indeed true...and appleinsider has been pretty reliable lately..
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 05:33 AM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Howdr
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
LOL and you believe that would hold up in court against the significance of the word "Unlimited"?
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
Yet Apple showed the Fine print to the US Gov and they got slapped in the face. Jailbreaking is OK and legal!
As I said : A contract does not make it legal, its just an untested agreement that may or may not stand up to court ruling.
With Jailbreaking there were those using the same arguments before.
I need to go good conversation
I think extra charge for tethering is not ok and think at&t is wrong. no matter the contract.
GL everyone
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
Yet Apple showed the Fine print to the US Gov and they got slapped in the face. Jailbreaking is OK and legal!
As I said : A contract does not make it legal, its just an untested agreement that may or may not stand up to court ruling.
With Jailbreaking there were those using the same arguments before.
I need to go good conversation
I think extra charge for tethering is not ok and think at&t is wrong. no matter the contract.
GL everyone
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
skunk
Mar 26, 06:57 PM
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless.It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
jessica.
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:09 PM
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
beaster
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
If you cant see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV then you need a better TV or a better HD source. Also, 99% of the planet would be hard pressed to see much of a difference between 1080i and 720p, all else equal. Both have almost the idential # of pixels displayed per second. 720p is usually considered superior for fast-moving video, like sports (which is why ESPN, ABC, and FOX standardized on it). 1080i might have the edge on talk shows/news/etc. Now you may in fact be seeing a difference on your setup due to your particular display and/or source content, but in an apples to apples comparison, 720p and 1080i are neck and neck.
-Sean
maclaptop
Apr 10, 11:41 AM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Sometimes Apple is a very slow learner. They finally realize that the harder they go after the kids, the more money their parents will cough up. This is especially crucial as Apple centers its business on entertainment. Hook the little kids on games andthey'll be Apple's new faithful.
Make the interface of the laptops look like iOS, load them with games, and focus on simplification. The kids market is ripe for Apple.
Sometimes Apple is a very slow learner. They finally realize that the harder they go after the kids, the more money their parents will cough up. This is especially crucial as Apple centers its business on entertainment. Hook the little kids on games andthey'll be Apple's new faithful.
Make the interface of the laptops look like iOS, load them with games, and focus on simplification. The kids market is ripe for Apple.
OllyW
Apr 13, 07:24 AM
Wow all this fuss over a piece of software, It's not a hardware or even a OS release :confused:
How dare they.
It doesn't even run on the iPad or iPhone. :rolleyes:
How dare they.
It doesn't even run on the iPad or iPhone. :rolleyes:
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
jchung
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
Check out this post on modmyi.com - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html#post5900780
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
ryme4reson
Oct 12, 05:49 PM
Can some1 run this from within VPC. I believe that VPC is supposed to emulate the 486, so I am interested in finding out if they process is handled different, even though its a G4. Sure it will not be fast (emulatin) but i would be interested in seeing the results.
EDIT: ddtlm, are you interested in helping me with X86 assembly? I would be willing to pay for your time. Email me at jamesk777@mac.com or IM me at ryme4reson (AOL) Thanks
EDIT: ddtlm, are you interested in helping me with X86 assembly? I would be willing to pay for your time. Email me at jamesk777@mac.com or IM me at ryme4reson (AOL) Thanks
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:45 AM
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:49 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:26 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
iCole
Apr 6, 12:54 PM
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:22 AM
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment