technicolor
Sep 21, 05:52 AM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 09:24 AM
If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Bonte
Sep 20, 08:30 AM
It's not a cut down mini. Think of it more like a wireless iPod for your TV.
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
skunk
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
FreeState
Mar 27, 10:09 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
CuttyShark
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
It can edit and do cool stuff and we know that. What all can it do? We just have to wait and see. For now, I see it's something fun to play around with and I'll probably do that. I'll take my 5D, shoot some fun stuff, edit on location, and upload to youtube. I can't say how far I'd go if my paying gig requires pulling footage from a tape source, importing an EDL or older FCP project for an update, or organizing tracks for exporting stems to my post audio outsourcer.
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
.jpg "prince harry diana funeral.")
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:55 AM
Well you have a point there. The iPod was a so-called fad too. It took 8 or 9 years for it to wear off and see fickle consumers switch to the next fad, the iPhone and iPad. The iPad-like devices may be a fad but it's likely to die out b/c a it's replaced by a next gen device. Apple is already showing it's cards in melding OS X with hints of iOS.
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
Perhaps you should define what you mean, then. Definitionally, to be a "Christian" generally means a belief in God, a belief that Jesus was God's son on earth, and a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as expiation of humanity's sins. Everything else is open to interpretation--even those denominations you think believe the Bible "literally" do not.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
Perhaps you should define what you mean, then. Definitionally, to be a "Christian" generally means a belief in God, a belief that Jesus was God's son on earth, and a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as expiation of humanity's sins. Everything else is open to interpretation--even those denominations you think believe the Bible "literally" do not.
javajedi
Oct 13, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by macwannabe
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
You are absolutely 110% correct. We've allready dismissed BackToTheMac's outlandish fallacies though :)
I think he gets the picture now....
SPUY767
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
r0k
Apr 12, 01:47 PM
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
Quobobo
Mar 18, 06:46 PM
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
Except with one key difference: you're paying for the music. If you can buy a CD and rip it to any format you like, why should you have to have DRM on files you (legally) download? This is why I never use online download sites, I don't understand why I should pay for files that are inferiour to what I can download for free. When I pay for music, I'd rather buy a CD that doesn't have any DRM.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:53 PM
I'd be willing to bet the new iMacs and Mac Pros will only need a firmware update.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:02 PM
Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.
So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.
So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.
When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.
It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.
So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.
So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.
When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.
It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:06 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apples does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apples does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
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.
DMann
Jul 14, 02:16 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Now, that is FUNNY!
However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:
Dual Core Intel� Xeon� Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)
Perhaps "one more thing......"
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment