KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:18 AM
Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
Right, because in order for it to be "work" it has to involve 3D rendering or working on the (crappy) movie Avatar.
The rest of the 300 million people in the USA who don't do 3D rendering or making digital movie effects - we all just surf the web and play games.
Oh, and by the way, for 30 years now - there have been lots of "real PCs" which were not used for 3D rendering or making movies. In fact, until the recent advances in parallel processing, most of that 3D work and rendering was done on servers and workstations that were specifically designed for the task and cost tens of thousands of dollars each (not including software). So your "real PCs" up until maybe the last 5 or 10 years couldn't even do as much as current iPads do now - let alone what you are calling "real work".
My current iPhone has more processing power, more memory and "disk" space, and better bandwidth than my Office computers from 1995 to 2005.
You might need a massive computer for your work, but I know a LOT of industries that are moving to iPads because they better meet the needs of the user. The medical industry, and the logistics industry are moving that way. The auto sales industry is moving that way. Whether it is iOS or not is yet to be seen, but having a small inexpensive portable computer system with a 10 hour battery that can do 95% of the workload in a business is very attractive. I know realtors and home contractors who have become excited about the iPad as well. Even auto mechanics are using iPads in their business.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
Right, because in order for it to be "work" it has to involve 3D rendering or working on the (crappy) movie Avatar.
The rest of the 300 million people in the USA who don't do 3D rendering or making digital movie effects - we all just surf the web and play games.
Oh, and by the way, for 30 years now - there have been lots of "real PCs" which were not used for 3D rendering or making movies. In fact, until the recent advances in parallel processing, most of that 3D work and rendering was done on servers and workstations that were specifically designed for the task and cost tens of thousands of dollars each (not including software). So your "real PCs" up until maybe the last 5 or 10 years couldn't even do as much as current iPads do now - let alone what you are calling "real work".
My current iPhone has more processing power, more memory and "disk" space, and better bandwidth than my Office computers from 1995 to 2005.
You might need a massive computer for your work, but I know a LOT of industries that are moving to iPads because they better meet the needs of the user. The medical industry, and the logistics industry are moving that way. The auto sales industry is moving that way. Whether it is iOS or not is yet to be seen, but having a small inexpensive portable computer system with a 10 hour battery that can do 95% of the workload in a business is very attractive. I know realtors and home contractors who have become excited about the iPad as well. Even auto mechanics are using iPads in their business.
Mac.World
Apr 24, 02:29 AM
Religion and politics. Two things never to be discussed on forums. Well that and iOS vs Android. :D
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:12 PM
The earth is going to end up a burnt chunk of concrete unless all construction and production of materials stops today. Its is never going to happen so just start looking for other planets.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:59 PM
Your quick denigration of Adobe shows how much you don't know about the industry
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:24 AM
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 09:49 AM
you think it would be 'pretty cool' to relocate 130 million people to some 'barren area' in a foreign land when there is absolutely no reasons for it?
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
and you think it would be "practical"????
Obviously, it wouln't be "all at once" and these types of things never happen in one single "foreign land". But history is wrought with many resettling of peoples, the Jews is just one example. This actually happens a lot for "unnatural" disasters like war and stuff.
If this situation blows up more and more, heck, humans haven't even dealt with such a potential disaster outcome before. It's actually purely "unnatural" at it's roots. There isn't any natural deposit of refined radioactive uranium/plutonium/whatever that we've encountered on earth before. This is purely man-made and is not supposed to exist. I mean, what is there to do in such a case? I know GM, Microsoft, Motorola et al may have a field day if the Japanese just disapeared, but hey, there's added value elsewhere that many nations would value in having their human and physical assets close.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
portishead
Apr 12, 11:02 PM
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 09:11 PM
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
Old Muley
May 2, 09:36 AM
After seeing at least two posters refer to this as a "virus", I'm sitting here doing a face palm. One more "it's a virus" comment and I'm moving up to the double face palm...
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:36 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
Puma not sure if this will be any good but i have been reading this all day...its updated frequently
clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake)
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
Puma not sure if this will be any good but i have been reading this all day...its updated frequently
clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake)
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:40 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
EricNau
Sep 21, 05:00 PM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
No. :(
-Clive
No. :(
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:50 AM
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
White House Easter Egg
sterno74
Oct 26, 01:54 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.
Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?
It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.
I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.
Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?
It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.
zgh1999
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Get with the program here.
Everyone should buy an iPad 2, in both black and white.
And everyone should also buy an iPhone 4, just in black.
Didn't you get the memo?
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by snoopy
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
those math functions are extremely complex and hard to do fast if we stay way behind the curve of the pc world
i was in this computer repair class where we had to do the math, some of the math that a processor did, so we could appreciate that little thing
in the old days of computing, way back when in the 1970s, many computing funtions had to be done by phd mathematicians and there were very few silicon "math co-processors"
early computer science college programs were thus a lot like math programs...it's so funny, actually sad, to see how many older, math literate techies were completely unable to relate when gui came along...it was like the great slaughter in silicon valley...we take the mouse and gui for granted but not only did it take away jobs, it also was a curve ball many inflexible older techies could not adjust to
change is never easy in the IT field and that is why it is rare to see anybody go from mathematician with vacuum tubes to green screen coder to gui to "whatever" the future holds
i also had a friend who had memorized hundreds of key combinations like ctrl-a and such and he only just learned to use the mouse two years ago...he took literally five years to learn how to use it with its two buttons...he could never remember, "was that right click, left click, double click, and where do i keep my fingers?"
i could go on with old man stories from the trenches of san jose, but i will stop NOW ;)
if you started with a mouse, it only takes a few weeks to learn how to interact with windows and modern computers
one family friend, a computer professor at stanford, never got used to gui and he still uses his trusty 286...he says he can't think when there is more than one color on the screen and he never got used to the mouse
kind of the way i feel like when i use "hex-pee" or i try to play a game console thingy like x-box with all those buttons...as a ten year old yanks the keypad/console from me at the computer store and memorizes the keys and buttons within minutes as it relates to that game being played
:p
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
those math functions are extremely complex and hard to do fast if we stay way behind the curve of the pc world
i was in this computer repair class where we had to do the math, some of the math that a processor did, so we could appreciate that little thing
in the old days of computing, way back when in the 1970s, many computing funtions had to be done by phd mathematicians and there were very few silicon "math co-processors"
early computer science college programs were thus a lot like math programs...it's so funny, actually sad, to see how many older, math literate techies were completely unable to relate when gui came along...it was like the great slaughter in silicon valley...we take the mouse and gui for granted but not only did it take away jobs, it also was a curve ball many inflexible older techies could not adjust to
change is never easy in the IT field and that is why it is rare to see anybody go from mathematician with vacuum tubes to green screen coder to gui to "whatever" the future holds
i also had a friend who had memorized hundreds of key combinations like ctrl-a and such and he only just learned to use the mouse two years ago...he took literally five years to learn how to use it with its two buttons...he could never remember, "was that right click, left click, double click, and where do i keep my fingers?"
i could go on with old man stories from the trenches of san jose, but i will stop NOW ;)
if you started with a mouse, it only takes a few weeks to learn how to interact with windows and modern computers
one family friend, a computer professor at stanford, never got used to gui and he still uses his trusty 286...he says he can't think when there is more than one color on the screen and he never got used to the mouse
kind of the way i feel like when i use "hex-pee" or i try to play a game console thingy like x-box with all those buttons...as a ten year old yanks the keypad/console from me at the computer store and memorizes the keys and buttons within minutes as it relates to that game being played
:p
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 09:22 PM
When exactly?
Uh, gee I don't know :confused:
Oh yeah, here it is:
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with All�h, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Z�lim�n (polytheists and wrong*doers).
8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
8:57 So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) All�h brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:2 He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
59:13 Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
Uh, gee I don't know :confused:
Oh yeah, here it is:
3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with All�h, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Z�lim�n (polytheists and wrong*doers).
8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
8:57 So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) All�h brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:2 He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
59:13 Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:12 PM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
Are those other phones accessing the 3G network? I carried a non 3G network AT&T phone around with me and experienced none of the signal problems I had with my iPhone in the same areas.
Are those other phones accessing the 3G network? I carried a non 3G network AT&T phone around with me and experienced none of the signal problems I had with my iPhone in the same areas.
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:07 AM
I understand your point abut Japan.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
<---Degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis in renewable energy.
If you want to contest efficiency percentages, it won't matter; the point is that even if you drastically increase those percentages, it still isn't/won't be enough for Japan, especially when you look at the areas needed for those power sources, which Japan simply doesn't have.
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
I don't dismiss green energy per se, didn't mean for it to sound that way. However, what I am saying, is that even if they work for the US or Europe, they aren't going to be viable for every country, every landmass, every population because they aren't all the same. Thus, this means more should be invested into sources like nuclear because even if they don't prove to be the way of the future for America, they very well may be elsewhere in the world, perhaps out of necessity if nothing else.
Sorry if I sounded irate in my last post, I just get tired of seeing the fear-mongering about nuclear power when you can count the number of true disasters on one hand in the history of man, especially when you realize it's been in use for decades in places like Japan with no issues at all prior to now. The issue now isn't even about the reactor or nuclear power itself, it was a natural disaster double-whammy, that knocked out the backup power supply. Had there been a dual backup (which you bet there will be, far up the mountain from where a tsunami can reach, and running underground when this is all done), there wouldn't even be an issue here.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.