Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:51 PM
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 or of. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican.
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
more...
xlambodog
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
To start off, I do not want to get intimate with the moral aspect of this. Everyone has their opinion.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
people wouldnt believe.
more...
Physically fit
more...
and physically fit are
more...
are physically fit have
longer physically fit for
more...
to stay physically fit
He#39;s physically fit
him as physically fit and
more...
remaining physically fit.
more...
were less physically fit
being physically fit
more...
that being physically fit
more...
physically fit, active,
Strategic; Physically fit
A physically fit canine is
becoming physically fit,
more...
“You can stay physically fit
more...
more...
more...
more...
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Mord
Jul 13, 08:21 AM
the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.
more...
sawah
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
The point is, whether or not you feel you SHOULD be able to use it any way you want, YOU signed the contract that says you can't!
No one had a problem with it and was all "Take Apple to court!" when they were tethering for free. But now that you're caught you want to complain about the contract?
Argue all you want about whatever, but the facts come down to you signed that contract. It hasn't changed. You don't get to be mad about it now. And somehow I doubt any of you are getting out of an etf if you want to leave because that's always been in the contract you signed.
No one had a problem with it and was all "Take Apple to court!" when they were tethering for free. But now that you're caught you want to complain about the contract?
Argue all you want about whatever, but the facts come down to you signed that contract. It hasn't changed. You don't get to be mad about it now. And somehow I doubt any of you are getting out of an etf if you want to leave because that's always been in the contract you signed.
more...
CalBoy
Mar 27, 02:57 PM
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
more...
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
Believe me, a lot of people do. Thanks to my UNIX knowledge, I am so much more productive in Linux/BSD on a PC than a Mac. For beginners to computers, sure Macs could be much more productive.
We were just discussing the G4--it was never intended to be an explict vs war between Mac and PCs. It's not a software thread. It's a frickin' hardware thread where we are discussing the inferiority of the G4.
Research scientists should think twice before using a Mac for research--since the G4 blows so much. That's where it matters. It's faster for them to use PCs than Macs. Gee, by 100 seconds. Think about it... a lot of scientific formulas are a lot more complex than our simplistic benchmark programs--100 minutes is sure much longer than 5 minutes.
too many of those programs are only on pcs
one research scientist my wife works with started coding in dos on the mac compiler and if he succeeded in getting into the server, which would not happen anyway, he would have caused major damage
this phd had no idea that the g4 and the mac os was not dos...he was sure everything was dos like his windows 98 box he and all the other research scientists use
the sas program they have only works on 95 and 98:p
Sydde
Mar 14, 02:39 PM
We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
more...
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.
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
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 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
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 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
more...
stcanard
Mar 18, 09:27 PM
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
more...
*LTD*
Apr 10, 12:33 PM
Mobile gaming has been around for years in the form of handheld consoles. Hasn't really affected consoles that you plug into your TV/monitor.
How is going to blur?
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
How is going to blur?
The psp slim & lite can output to a TV. Didn't really do much for PSP sales though. What use is it outputting a game from an ipad to the TV when you have limited control input options. The lack of buttons or real inputs will severely limit the types of games devices like the ipad can do.
I take it you do then :rolleyes:
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 03:18 PM
Confucius say: Foolish is man who questions skunk in ancient tongues.
And don't even try to upskunk in pig latin.
And don't even try to upskunk in pig latin.
more...
andiwm2003
Jul 12, 01:40 PM
.....................................I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
more...
�algiris
May 2, 08:58 AM
About as huge as most windows ones!
"Bigger".
"Bigger".
ddtlm
Oct 13, 02:27 PM
Sherman:
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
Hmm, not sure where you got that rumor, but it reeks of uninformed "macz rulez!" PC bashing. They did not lengthen the pipeline to get the 4.7ghz P4. The P5, according to conventional wisdom, is the 90nm P4 sporting SSE3, not some totally new chip.
they could only get a 1.3Ghz P5, pretty much equal to the G4, without all those extra steps
Load of crap. Plain and simple. You know there are Pentium 3's available for sale at 1.4ghz, don't you? And lets not even contemplate for fast Athlons are clocking without the P4's super-long pipeline.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 11:33 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?
Is it:
1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?
Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. :confused:
I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. :confused:
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?
Is it:
1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?
Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. :confused:
I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. :confused:
more...
gugy
Jul 12, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
more...
firestarter
Mar 13, 11:50 AM
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
more...
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
iAlan
Mar 11, 09:36 AM
I was at work when the quake hit. Building swayed (its a 3 year old building) more than anything I've experienced in my 10+ years in Tokyo. And the duration of the quake is what surprised (and unnerved me) the most as most are short - and the epicenter was 350K away from Tokyo.
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
more...
THX1139
Jul 13, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
more...
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
more...
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
more...
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento