fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
theBB
Sep 20, 12:38 PM
Its Front Row. Which can play whatever Quicktime can play. Which means it can play avi, wmv etc. Just install the codecs.
I doubt that. The decoding will take place in iTV. How are you going to install codecs on it? If it does not support it out of the box, it probably will not be possible.
I doubt that. The decoding will take place in iTV. How are you going to install codecs on it? If it does not support it out of the box, it probably will not be possible.
cwelsh
Apr 21, 08:42 AM
So you can steal artists property. Tell me how you can justify that? Nothing to do with android or ios but please tell me how you can justify stealing. Its the same as going into a shop and taking something. Sure nothing will happen immediately but I guarantee you will pay for it.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
On topic, i am very disappointed with the LTE announcement but regardless my 3GS is slowly dying, so it looks like i'll be getting the iphone 5 anyhow.
Sorry that's like saying I only steal from big manufactures like Heinz or Kellogs.
YOU ARE STILL A THIEF.
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
On topic, i am very disappointed with the LTE announcement but regardless my 3GS is slowly dying, so it looks like i'll be getting the iphone 5 anyhow.
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:49 PM
Just thought I'd add some tidbits to the DVR discussion. As a few others have pointed out, El Gato and others don't do digital cable content. Digital cable is encoded and the only way to decode it currently is with a cable company set-top box or a CableCARD.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
Wilbah
Jun 3, 09:53 AM
I have set up a contract with a provider BEFORE committing to a long iphone contract. I go into the said telephone store and set up some other non iphone device. Then return home and test its capability and signal strength. If it is acceptable I return the above phone for a full refund(I use it far less than the maximum 30 days. Then when the desired iphone is purchased I will expect the same performance.
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
I have reset the network settings on iphone, to no avail...
Before this week and the microcell experiment, I wouldnt have said this, but I honestly believe that the software that drives the phone is playing a huge part in how the phone handles tower switches, and thus is a culprit in the dropped call phenomena.
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
I have reset the network settings on iphone, to no avail...
Before this week and the microcell experiment, I wouldnt have said this, but I honestly believe that the software that drives the phone is playing a huge part in how the phone handles tower switches, and thus is a culprit in the dropped call phenomena.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Sir what is being stolen?
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Sir what is being stolen?
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
johnnowak
Mar 20, 07:01 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:37 PM
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ????????
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
beaster
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
JustAGuy: Okay, I modified that for 5000 and compiled on my Athlon-Tbird. Runs in about one second on average.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 11:56 PM
Plus the most important app of all is quite good at utilizing multiple processors, OS X.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
Well, no, unfortunately, it's not. OS X still needs a lot of improvement to make it work *well* with multiple CPUs. Right now it's about on par with Windows NT 4.0, Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 4.x, but the next release should see some big improvements, especially now that multi-CPU machines (and pseudo-multi-CPU machines, ie: Hyperthreading) are so much more common than they were back in the mid-late '90s.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
digitalaviator
Jun 21, 05:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
ct2k7
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:16 AM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
I am a designer at UK Design Team, TI, UK.
There were only 2 android phones: One of my colleagues (with an HTC desire) who sweared he wouldn't buy an android phone ever. The other one was me; who sold his nexusS at 3/4th the price.
Most of the employees here carry an iPhone 3Gs or an iPhone 4 or a dumbphone. Being one of the designers, designing high speed SerDes, they carry an iPhone.
Why? They better fix their SerDes, rather than a broken Android Phone. Some people have a life.
Apart from office laptops, people carry macbooks and macbook pros; although they are not used in any design work at TI, UK [SerDes].
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
I am a designer at UK Design Team, TI, UK.
There were only 2 android phones: One of my colleagues (with an HTC desire) who sweared he wouldn't buy an android phone ever. The other one was me; who sold his nexusS at 3/4th the price.
Most of the employees here carry an iPhone 3Gs or an iPhone 4 or a dumbphone. Being one of the designers, designing high speed SerDes, they carry an iPhone.
Why? They better fix their SerDes, rather than a broken Android Phone. Some people have a life.
Apart from office laptops, people carry macbooks and macbook pros; although they are not used in any design work at TI, UK [SerDes].
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 11:49 PM
Apple didn't skew any numbers. Apple didn't provide these numbers. They had nothing to do with it.
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
call of duty black ops
That said, how are the numbers skewed? When counting OS market share do you treat 13" notebooks differently than desktops? Or do you add everything up?
gnasher729
Apr 21, 05:12 PM
I don't. I just don't have OS/X.
So for the record: Not only do you constantly post whatever negative things about Apple and Apple products come to your mind, but you actually have not the slightest clue what you are talking about?
So for the record: Not only do you constantly post whatever negative things about Apple and Apple products come to your mind, but you actually have not the slightest clue what you are talking about?
Cougarcat
May 2, 12:30 PM
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:30 PM
I lived for 5 years in Saudi Arabia. And yes, the above pretty much sums up their version of Islam. And, the only allowed religion is Islam, and if you live there women must dress and act appropriately, to include western women. It is a screwed up culture, but so be it.
Maybe because it's their country?
I definitely got the opposite impression when I was there a few years ago... People looked like they were having fun.
Maybe because it's their country?
I definitely got the opposite impression when I was there a few years ago... People looked like they were having fun.
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 06:04 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
