CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
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."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
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."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
bluap84
Mar 11, 02:20 AM
i woke up to this...its shocking isnt it. That water is just ripping past anything it likes and leaving it destoryed. The tsunami looks like its going to be massive, and cause trouble for neigbouring countries / cities.
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
Blipp
Apr 12, 11:26 AM
Boy, I've read the first few pages of this thread and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that most people posting differences on here between Windows/OSX simply don't know how or haven't learned yet how to fully use OS X. The majority of complaints seem to simply be people who don't know the key commands to do what they're blaming OS X for lacking. If something is that disruptive to your workflow why aren't you guys doing the minimal amount of research it would take to solve the issue?
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 09:51 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:19 AM
exctly what i have been saying this last year.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:58 PM
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
jragosta
Mar 18, 04:43 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
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. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
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.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
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. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
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.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:05 AM
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?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:21 PM
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files just the same as in the Windows Start menu.
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Silentwave
Jul 12, 07:44 PM
Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
Why?
it means:
different LB (not such a big deal, but still there- and wouldn't it be nice if they could (i dont know if its possible) use a dual socket LB even with single processor versions, and you could add a second one later for more performance? farfetched for sure but hey a guy can dream ;) )
Different CPUs
Different RAM
slower FSB
Why do that when you could buy larger amounts of the same RAM and same processors, just use different numbers? I think we all know that XServe will use Woodcrest, but the more computers that use the same processors the better.
Same goes for the RAM. FB-DIMM memory is expensive. the more Apple can get, the easier it is on us.
Nike FC Barcelona N98 Men#39;s
Nike Barcelona FC Authentic
Barcelona FC Home #6 Xaui Nike
arcelona fc 2011. arcelona fc
arcelona fc logo. arcelona fc
Barcelona FC Home #15 Keita
arcelona fc 2011 team photo.
Why?
it means:
different LB (not such a big deal, but still there- and wouldn't it be nice if they could (i dont know if its possible) use a dual socket LB even with single processor versions, and you could add a second one later for more performance? farfetched for sure but hey a guy can dream ;) )
Different CPUs
Different RAM
slower FSB
Why do that when you could buy larger amounts of the same RAM and same processors, just use different numbers? I think we all know that XServe will use Woodcrest, but the more computers that use the same processors the better.
Same goes for the RAM. FB-DIMM memory is expensive. the more Apple can get, the easier it is on us.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:15 PM
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.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
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.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
miketcool
Sep 12, 03:39 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
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.
amin
Oct 8, 08:48 AM
...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)...
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
milo
Jul 13, 10:45 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:37 PM
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
munkery
May 2, 06:23 PM
Vulnerabilities are found in everything. It's not like sudo, RBAC or any other Unix scheme that's similar to Windows' UAC/RunAs has been vulnerability free all these years. This is besides the point that UAC is not somehow inferior. It's just an implementation of limited privilege escalation, same as you find on Unix systems. "Unix security" is not being any better here.
Really,
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....in32k.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....rivileges+2011
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used in relation to 32 bit processes.
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
Why are you going on and on about something that is not a common threat in the wild?
Really,
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....in32k.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....rivileges+2011
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used in relation to 32 bit processes.
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
Why are you going on and on about something that is not a common threat in the wild?
spaceballl
Mar 18, 09:25 AM
To be honest, I'm not too upset by this. I've used an iPhone for tethering via jailbreak long before the official support came. I did that fully knowing that I was breaking the rules, and that ATT might mess with me, but they didn't offer an official plan so I knew the risks. I still jailbreak my phone and use MyWi, but I pay for an official tethering plan so I'm not breaking the rules.
joepunk
Mar 12, 09:12 AM
I appreciate a little humor now and again during horrible tragedies. As long as that humor doesn't go overboard. It can break ones panicked state of fear.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 07:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
And growth is bad?
And growth is bad?
rjfiske
Sep 20, 03:25 PM
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
diamond.g
Apr 21, 09:00 AM
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
Reacent Post
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
0 comments:
Post a Comment