mac jones
Mar 12, 04:53 AM
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
How do you know what is was?. I don't have a clue. If you really know post it. I'd LOVE to get this sorted out as i'm a bit worried now.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:20 PM
Homosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 08:06 AM
The real facts are its only a report. The bottom line is Apple is stronger than ever and doing a great job.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
macorama
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
the users at macpredict got the nano and shuffle update dates spot on - shouldn't be too hard to pick the iTV Release Date (http://macpredict.com/events/Apples-iTV-Release-Date) in the lead up to christmas.
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T;'s actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T; stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T; that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T; is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
The people who are defending AT&T;'s actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T; stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T; that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T; is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
mixel
Apr 10, 06:35 AM
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
Make gaming more interactive and inclusive? What?
Sofar Apple have shown no signs of making Nintendo or Sony inferior or insignificant. If they "change gaming" in a linear progression from how they've been doing it so far it would be a MASSIVE regression for gaming. I would not be welcoming them as gaming overlords.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
Agreed, but one could say the same about most of the things you wrote in your post. Sony buy Nintendo? Ummmm.. Sony and Nintendo are pretty relevant outside of blindfolded Mac fan circles.
Make gaming more interactive and inclusive? What?
Sofar Apple have shown no signs of making Nintendo or Sony inferior or insignificant. If they "change gaming" in a linear progression from how they've been doing it so far it would be a MASSIVE regression for gaming. I would not be welcoming them as gaming overlords.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
Agreed, but one could say the same about most of the things you wrote in your post. Sony buy Nintendo? Ummmm.. Sony and Nintendo are pretty relevant outside of blindfolded Mac fan circles.
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T; is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T; to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T; is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T; to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
macwannabe
Oct 13, 11:19 AM
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
