roland.g
Sep 20, 10:28 AM
I'm quit sure Steve Jobs demonstrated it to him in his house.Informing him about the hard drive.
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
qzak
Mar 18, 02:36 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
MacMiniOwner
Sep 12, 03:53 PM
I think the iTV is a fairly 'dumb' box that just drags media off you Mac on tou your TV...I've been doing this for years with a chipped xbox :)
nzlucas
Apr 11, 05:33 PM
Well i actually became less tech savvy after switching to Mac. I just re-read this post before submitting and it is a bit fanboyish and doesn't really answer the OP but may help some other posters.
With my PC i always had to worry about drivers and folder structure and everytime i installed a program i would lose some performance. Setting up networks was a night mare not to mention 24hr virus lookout.
I have had my powerbook since 06 and i cannot imagine a life with PC now. First things i was amazed with were expose and spotlight. For any switcher learn to use :apple: key-space (which opens Spotlight in the top corner) and you will start to rely much less heavily on your mouse ie hit :apple:key-space type skyp and hits will automatically start to load, once skype appears hit enter and , bang, its open.
Secondily iLife. It always blows me away that its free and included, such a more polished set of programs than what windows has. The integration of these programs is amazing and one more reason why you become less tech savvy because you stop having learn how to circumnavigate problems because they are more rare.
For those wanting open source programs, a quick look at Macupdate or version tracker can give lots of open source programs. I rarely pay for programs. Don't want to pay for Pages or Office, try openoffice? Can't afford Photoshop, try Gimp app.
For those nervous about the need to just drag and drop applications to delete them, it is just a emotion you have bought with you from your window days.
One thing windows does not have also is Genius Bar. Apple is about experience, and their customer service and backup are a strong component.
could go on, but those apple tutorial videos are handy so i suggest watch them, if you want a more simpler computing existence, switch to mac.
With my PC i always had to worry about drivers and folder structure and everytime i installed a program i would lose some performance. Setting up networks was a night mare not to mention 24hr virus lookout.
I have had my powerbook since 06 and i cannot imagine a life with PC now. First things i was amazed with were expose and spotlight. For any switcher learn to use :apple: key-space (which opens Spotlight in the top corner) and you will start to rely much less heavily on your mouse ie hit :apple:key-space type skyp and hits will automatically start to load, once skype appears hit enter and , bang, its open.
Secondily iLife. It always blows me away that its free and included, such a more polished set of programs than what windows has. The integration of these programs is amazing and one more reason why you become less tech savvy because you stop having learn how to circumnavigate problems because they are more rare.
For those wanting open source programs, a quick look at Macupdate or version tracker can give lots of open source programs. I rarely pay for programs. Don't want to pay for Pages or Office, try openoffice? Can't afford Photoshop, try Gimp app.
For those nervous about the need to just drag and drop applications to delete them, it is just a emotion you have bought with you from your window days.
One thing windows does not have also is Genius Bar. Apple is about experience, and their customer service and backup are a strong component.
could go on, but those apple tutorial videos are handy so i suggest watch them, if you want a more simpler computing existence, switch to mac.
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
springscansing
Oct 13, 04:46 AM
This is actually my first post. Yay! Been a machead forever (using a IIgs when I was 4).
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 12:23 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
bghoward
Oct 7, 05:21 PM
SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:27 AM
Nuclear experts are speculating that the explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released from water that's come into contact with the overheating fuel rods.
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
"If nuclear fuel rods overheat and then come into contact with water, this produces a large amount of highly-flammable hydrogen gas which can then ignite,"
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 11:17 AM
Closed-mouthed officials, and open-mouthed media.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Lucky736
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
Because it isn't cool to support fat kids that are being bullied, just if you live an alternative lifestyle. That's the American way, pick out a tiny sect of society and lift it up on a mantle to bitch about while ignoring the bigger issue.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Pale Rider
Aug 29, 02:52 PM
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
joueboy
Apr 9, 12:14 AM
Just like everybody else!
Daphtdazz
Oct 7, 11:03 AM
I mean, how else can they be coming up with a 2 year prediction to an accuracy of 0.67%?
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
gopher
Oct 9, 11:38 AM
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
Peterkro
Mar 14, 02:51 PM
something i noticed from the diagrams of the reactor layout: the water basin where the spent fuel rods are temporarily stored is actualy outside of the steel+concrete containment: so that might explain why some reactor only isotopes were detected
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.
i just hope none of those depelted fuel rods where scattered around from the top superstructre explosion
There is some damage to the storage pools housing the spent fuel rods and they are a source of concern,an explosion caused by lack of water cover is a possibility.