jaguarx
Oct 31, 02:24 AM
I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:41 AM
Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
babyj
Sep 20, 12:11 PM
What do you do with your Xbox that would been relevant to watching videos on your TV?
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
If you fit a mod chip to an Xbox it allows you to do lots of cool things, including upgrading the hard drive and run non certified software (eg homebrew, open source).
Probaby the most popular is Xbox Media Centre, which is what it says and does it pretty well. So for about £150 you end up with a decent media centre which isn't bad, plus its a game console as well.
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
If you fit a mod chip to an Xbox it allows you to do lots of cool things, including upgrading the hard drive and run non certified software (eg homebrew, open source).
Probaby the most popular is Xbox Media Centre, which is what it says and does it pretty well. So for about £150 you end up with a decent media centre which isn't bad, plus its a game console as well.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:48 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 04:35 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
aegisdesign
Oct 26, 05:11 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
ricgnzlzcr
Oct 25, 11:08 PM
Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
I would understand how your Quad G5 is getting a tad on the slow side;) . I feel pretty intense with my single 1 ghz G4.
Unlike me though, you actually require that processor power. Can't wait till you post your impressions of your OctoMac within an hour of getting it!!
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
I would understand how your Quad G5 is getting a tad on the slow side;) . I feel pretty intense with my single 1 ghz G4.
Unlike me though, you actually require that processor power. Can't wait till you post your impressions of your OctoMac within an hour of getting it!!
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
jlc1978
Mar 18, 07:06 AM
They joys of an unregulated mobile industry..... being stuck with only 1 (until recently) choice of carrier, 2 year contracts, paying extra for tethering, PAYING for incoming calls (WTF:eek:).
I'm glad I'm stuck in over regulated EU. On the up side, you yanks get to play with all the new toys first :rolleyes:
Actually, you can buy unsubsidized phones and have no contract lock just as in the EU; plus we don't get charged extra for calling a cell phone from another phone - and given the calling plans and unlimited minutes between the same carrier / friends / evenings using minutes for incoming calls is a non-issue for virtually all US phone users - I'd rather have that then have to pay to call a cell phone.
I'm glad I'm stuck in over regulated EU. On the up side, you yanks get to play with all the new toys first :rolleyes:
Actually, you can buy unsubsidized phones and have no contract lock just as in the EU; plus we don't get charged extra for calling a cell phone from another phone - and given the calling plans and unlimited minutes between the same carrier / friends / evenings using minutes for incoming calls is a non-issue for virtually all US phone users - I'd rather have that then have to pay to call a cell phone.
Lau
Aug 29, 11:05 AM
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
pdjudd
Oct 8, 09:19 AM
...but who has the market share?
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
bruinsrme
Apr 23, 12:46 PM
Blue..... Thank you for the taking the time to share those tips.....
greenstork
Jul 12, 03:27 PM
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Multimedia
Nov 1, 10:17 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
Isn't this misleading? It says 'shipped' not 'sold' so I assume basically it's a bogus report. You can ship all the crappy tablets you want..doesn't mean they sold.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
arguably yes,,,, but it's hard to get 'sold' data. that is 10 manufacturers may ship to lots of distributors who sell to thousands retails or re-distributors (enterprise) who may sell them again. To get 'sold' data is difficult, so they get 'shipped' data instead and just throw in a margin of error.
It's better to focus on the *trend* then dismiss a report because number may be slightly off (stats are never entirely accurate and can be messed with)
P.
The Beatles
Apr 9, 11:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
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.
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 11:18 AM
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom
b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe
And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?
I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.
Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:16 PM
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Also buttons let your brain maneuver through the game by feeling and location on the controller. The iPad is a flat surface. You would have look where you are pressing.
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Also buttons let your brain maneuver through the game by feeling and location on the controller. The iPad is a flat surface. You would have look where you are pressing.