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.
hairstyles for long hair with
Long Layered hairstyle
Layered hairstyles combined
Hairstyles For Long Hair With
Layered and Bangs hairstyle
Shining sleek hair colored
Cute emo girls bang hairstyles
hairstyles for long hair
A shag hairstyle with long
Modern Women Bangs Hair Styles
For a medium length hair,
cute hairstyles for long hair
The longer the hair,
hairstyles with angs and layers for long hair.
hairstyles for long hair
From short to long looks
Hair Styles for Long Hair
hairstyles for long hair with
Reacent Post
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.
LightSpeed1
Apr 22, 12:48 AM
It was only a matter of time.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
Most Atheists do not preach at others to not believe ... they just do not buy into the concept that religious people hang onto.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:15 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 10:53 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.
The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.
MacFly123
Mar 18, 02:50 PM
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I thought I made clear in my post that this is simply double billing what is supposed to be an unlimited plan for many and I do NOT agree nor think it is ethical for the carriers to do this! But, when people sign a contract and agree to the terms doing otherwise is not being honest. Plain and simple.
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I thought I made clear in my post that this is simply double billing what is supposed to be an unlimited plan for many and I do NOT agree nor think it is ethical for the carriers to do this! But, when people sign a contract and agree to the terms doing otherwise is not being honest. Plain and simple.
Th3Crow
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
joepunk
Mar 11, 01:16 AM
Just heard about it on CBC late night news. Terrible.
awmazz
Mar 14, 12:27 PM
This here page, fwiw (http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=8976200&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL), says the carrier RR was exposed to thirty days radiation in an hour. There are more than 700 hours in a month. You do the math.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:43 PM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
ZilogZ80
Apr 6, 04:02 AM
Most of these "problems" are down to people not knowing how to operate their Macs. I would recommend to any new switcher (& a lot of the people who have posted in this thread!) get a good book ("The Missing Manual" is great) which explains everything you need to know.
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.
SuperJudge
Apr 24, 10:36 AM
Maybe deep down I'm an atheist too, and I'm just entertaining the notion of agnosticism as a kind of nod to the great debt we owe Judaism and Christianity. If it wasn't for those two faiths which allowed for reformations (such a thing would be impossible under, say, Islam) then secular Western democracies would be vastly different.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
...
If Europe had succumbed to the advance of Islam, if Vienna had fallen in the 17th century things likely would be very different today. Europe would have produced as many Nobel Prize winners as the entire Islamic World
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
skunk
Apr 26, 05:20 PM
Have we just passed through the looking glass? :confused:
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:57 PM
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.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
OperatorAce
Apr 20, 05:31 PM
Zero on both platforms? If they exists in 2.021
Android has plenty of malware issues, including virus like programs.
Android has plenty of malware issues, including virus like programs.
Lau
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
CalBoy
Mar 27, 02:57 PM
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
kdarling
Jun 1, 12:36 AM
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T. Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
0 comments:
Post a Comment