cdd543
May 6, 10:37 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
This isn't true..both ATT and Verizon use the cellular 850 frequency in many places. The 1900 pcs band doesn't carry as far, but if tower or antenna placement is closer then it shouldn't matter.
Regardless ATT still drops a lot of calls. My wife is in Vegas and she has had about 10 dropped calls..all while showing a full 3g signal on her iphone.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
This isn't true..both ATT and Verizon use the cellular 850 frequency in many places. The 1900 pcs band doesn't carry as far, but if tower or antenna placement is closer then it shouldn't matter.
Regardless ATT still drops a lot of calls. My wife is in Vegas and she has had about 10 dropped calls..all while showing a full 3g signal on her iphone.
Eduardo1971
Apr 28, 07:27 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
BladesOfSteel
May 5, 10:51 AM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Therbo
May 2, 09:41 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
ncv
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
Great news. Pity I just did the Final Cut Pro training course.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
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.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
~Shard~
Oct 31, 08:42 PM
No kidding. :rolleyes: All I want is to compress video faster than I can with the 4-core Mac Pro - that's IT. So if it won't do that, I'll just have a cow and go to bed for six months. :eek:
Haha, sounds like a good plan! ;) :)
Haha, sounds like a good plan! ;) :)
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:33 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:08 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
chirpie
Apr 13, 11:01 AM
I don't get the "imovie pro" comments. From the announcement, does it look like functionality is removed? What specifically would make this new version less pro than the previous.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:53 PM
Ditto stem cells. :)
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 02:50 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips.
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:40 PM
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Some helpful quotes from the modmyi thread:
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
-------
I helped my boss through this one... I had him call AT&T and explain that he received a message about something called "tethering" and to act dumb and explain that he is a heavy pandora and Netflix user and doesn't understand why he's going to be billed more for it. Bottom line they couldn't prove it so they apologized and removed issue from his account with no changes.
Good luck to everyone. (my boss was on 4.2.1 and he is using about 25gb per month)
AT&T is hoping people will either ignore the message or call to apologize (Don't act guilty and you'll be fine)
--------
I told AT&T that I stream Sirius all day. They said my plan can stay the same since i don't "tether" lol
-------
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
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.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
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.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:47 PM
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
latergator116
Mar 21, 06:44 AM
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar