sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
Professionally lifted inch
2004-2010 Nissan Titan 3quot; +
Lifted+nissan+titan+pro4x
Nissan Xterra 3 Inch Lift
2006 Nissan Titan Lifted.
CST Lift Kit on a 2004 Nissan
nissan titan se king
Nissan Titan Suspension Lift
TUBE STEPS, OUTLAND, 3-INCH ROUND BLACK PAINTED 04-11 NISSAN TITAN - EXTENDED CAB. TUBE STEPS, OUTLAND, 3-INCH ROUND BLACK PAINTED 04-11 NISSAN TITAN
be the Titan Unit Hubs.
Picture of a 2006 Nissan Titan
nissan Titan procomp lift
Ford F250 3 Inch Lift. Nissan
2004 Titan.
Nissan Titan. Sources:
2005 Nissan Titan 4x4 Off Road
2008 Nissan Titan Suspension
Nissan titan 6 inch lift stock
![]()
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 27, 08:37 AM
It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
jabi
Sep 20, 11:50 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
Given the form factor, I believe this is designed to sit on top of a Mac mini to gain recording functionality. Apple has no interest in taking away the computer from the equation. They see the Mac as the hub of your digital lifestyle. So, I predict we will see a "Media Center" version of Mac OS X that is designed to go with a specialized version of a Mac mini suited for recording TV, iTunes integration etc. that sits under the iTV.
Given the form factor, I believe this is designed to sit on top of a Mac mini to gain recording functionality. Apple has no interest in taking away the computer from the equation. They see the Mac as the hub of your digital lifestyle. So, I predict we will see a "Media Center" version of Mac OS X that is designed to go with a specialized version of a Mac mini suited for recording TV, iTunes integration etc. that sits under the iTV.
Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 06:11 AM
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that?
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
javajedi
Oct 9, 08:03 PM
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
dante@sisna.com
Nov 1, 11:02 AM
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/20
06/09/26/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.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
"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/20
06/09/26/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.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
Howdr
Mar 18, 11:39 AM
Why do they have to charge for tethering? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I tether a lot, I will use more than 2 gigs in a month. Charge me extra at that point. At least they now give you 2 Gig extra for your tethering money. I would just prefer to not pay for that extra 2 gig until I need it. I only need to tether once a month at best, so I don't want to pay for a bunch of tethering. I also don't want to leave my unlimited plan. Sadly, I have never gone over 2 GB, but I like knowing that I don't have to worry about it.
Because it get's you off the unlimited GF plan then.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t; hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t;
You all yell contract contract, At&t; yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t; or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
Because it get's you off the unlimited GF plan then.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t; hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t;
You all yell contract contract, At&t; yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t; or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
bluap84
Mar 11, 05:36 AM
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
chrono1081
Apr 20, 08:37 PM
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:27 AM
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or
even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or
even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
Doctor Q
Mar 20, 06:21 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
Rt&Dzine;
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Not really. Chernobyl has an estimated death toll of 4000. Let's multiply that by 10 for arguments sake. More people are killed each year in the US alone by car accidents. Nuclear power is still a fairly minor risk.
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
zaphon
Apr 20, 11:25 PM
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:37 AM
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources t
o provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources t
o provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
Rt&Dzine;
Mar 27, 07:44 PM
According to you and your internet sources, sexuality can be readily changed by the individual right? So why don't you try changing yours? You don't actually have to have sex with anyone, just will yourself to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 09:59 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 02:54 PM
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 23, 05:14 PM
im not a phone genius but i am pretty sure the Android is cross-carrier. If it surpasses the iPhone any time soon, it will be because of that. But i guarantee that if the iPhone went cross-carrier as well, we would see a HUGE jump in sales in which Android will plummet. Think about it. a REALLY BIG reason a lot of people go with the A
ndroid is because the iPhone isnt available on their carrier.
IMHO
iPhone has already gone cross carriers in other parts of the world and we did not see a huge jump.
Android is going to pass the iPhone because of choices and on multiple types of hardware. Some people want a hardware keyboard other want all touch screen, Some want smaller sizes and so on.
iPhone is take it or leave it. Android phones you have a lot more choices on hardware.
ndroid is because the iPhone isnt available on their carrier.
IMHO
iPhone has already gone cross carriers in other parts of the world and we did not see a huge jump.
Android is going to pass the iPhone because of choices and on multiple types of hardware. Some people want a hardware keyboard other want all touch screen, Some want smaller sizes and so on.
iPhone is take it or leave it. Android phones you have a lot more choices on hardware.
