Rt&Dzine
Mar 24, 07:06 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
bludragon06
Sep 11, 10:54 AM
I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
-Dave
-Dave
javajedi
Oct 12, 07:35 PM
ddtlm check this out, this may suprise you:
I ran the double precision test (sqtrt()) for the first time today as a c program. I compiled on the same machine as I ran the java version, with gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin didn't come with 3.x).
Here are the parameters to gcc:
$ gcc -march=i686 -O3 -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fforce-mem -fforce-addr -fexpensive-optimizations -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
Using this, the C program does it in 7.01 seconds. The same code, in java does it in 5.9. The javac, or the jvm seems to better be able to tear apart the loop. I think Java being "slow" is another common misconception that people have ;)
Oh well...
Meanwhile on the PPC side of things, I compiled the fp test against:
mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops
Ofcourse this is running in 10.2, and I'm still stuck at around 90 seconds.
Is there anything else you think we can do aside from vectorizing it? Lastly, now that we're all on the same page now on how we are compiling this, I reran the silly single percision int test, and my powerbook looses out to the 750FX. Same platform, same code and everything, but heck?
I ran the double precision test (sqtrt()) for the first time today as a c program. I compiled on the same machine as I ran the java version, with gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin didn't come with 3.x).
Here are the parameters to gcc:
$ gcc -march=i686 -O3 -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fforce-mem -fforce-addr -fexpensive-optimizations -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
Using this, the C program does it in 7.01 seconds. The same code, in java does it in 5.9. The javac, or the jvm seems to better be able to tear apart the loop. I think Java being "slow" is another common misconception that people have ;)
Oh well...
Meanwhile on the PPC side of things, I compiled the fp test against:
mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops
Ofcourse this is running in 10.2, and I'm still stuck at around 90 seconds.
Is there anything else you think we can do aside from vectorizing it? Lastly, now that we're all on the same page now on how we are compiling this, I reran the silly single percision int test, and my powerbook looses out to the 750FX. Same platform, same code and everything, but heck?
dejo
Oct 8, 10:45 AM
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
peharri
Sep 21, 08:34 AM
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
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?
rasmasyean
Mar 14, 08:30 PM
So, if they have a serious meltdown situation, the whole site could become so contaminated that no one who wants to live more than a few hours will be able to get anywhere near the other cores to keep the hoses on them? It would seem like one meltdown will take the rest of them with it, in a sort of chain reaction.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
Yeah, the folks living in the western US are really looking forward to the "divine wind" from Japan.
Well, I don't think they expect any explosion of the cap spewing a volcano of radioactive metal like Chernobol. If anything, worse case is they build a structure arround it like in Chernobol and hope the radioactive stuff doesn't seep into the water when it melts into the ground.
Theoretically, if the geography allows, I would presume they can dig arround and under the reactor and build some form of shield structure and leave it like that forever. Or until technology allows a real cleanup in the future.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:53 PM
Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
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.cgi?keyword=win32k.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.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
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.cgi?keyword=win32k.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.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 07:42 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
rdowns
Apr 15, 11:17 AM
By hateful things, you're talking about people like the Westboro Baptist Church and their picket signs, right?
Hate is hardly confined to the wingnut branch of religion.
Hate is hardly confined to the wingnut branch of religion.
stompy
Apr 14, 12:53 PM
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
tatuajes de corazones
imagenes de corazones.
the hawaiian tattoo
imagenes de corazones.
imagenes de corazones.
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
Organizations are responsible for the impact they have on community resources that impact everyone. Apple is going to have bad news sometimes, so accept it.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
And...?
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:50 PM
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
OutThere
Mar 13, 12:10 PM
I do feel that nuclear energy has a place in our energy production environment. That said, I regret that the problems in Japan will increase the public anxiety over nuclear power, because it will create opposition to the construction of new, safer, cleaner nuclear plants and place us in a position of having to continue using old nuclear plants which are less efficient and less safe.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
go4koko
May 31, 06:53 PM
Ok...so here's the deal...
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 07:55 PM
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
ATD
Nov 1, 04:26 PM
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment