likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:49 PM
Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
bokdol
May 2, 01:57 PM
i just cleaned out of the the computers at work. and the person had the installer window still open. they pressed ok but because they had 10 other windows open they really did not realize they authorized it to install.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:26 PM
You're crazy! Jobs just demoed a wireless replacement for a $5.00 cable that connects your computer to your TV. If you think this will change everything you're nuts!
And the iPod is just like an overpriced walkman, nobody is going to buy it.
I can get this device + a decent sized flat panel for 600 USD. What else is out there that lets me sit on the couch with a remote in my hand and watch the video content on my NAS? Sure there's Mac mini which I was about to buy ($$$ and a full computer to maintain), Myth front-end (did I mention hassle?), a modded Xbox (not enough CPU for big h.264), and probably some ugly M$ thing, but not at this cost, and not with the hassle-free user-friendliness that Apple builds into their products. And not in a sleek little package that I can hide behind a wall-mounted LCD, wireless and silent-running to boot. I'm going to have at least 2 of these, I don't want a full-function computer to maintain in each room I want to watch video, I want an appliance.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
I already did over a year ago in anticipation of this device, and don't miss it. I've got my NAS filling up right now. Sure I may "watch TV" on my 17" PB for now, but only because this device isn't out yet. I'm glad I waited and didn't get the mini.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get and I can't make you understand. I can't make it any clearer for you. The world just changed. All assuming they actually release this product that is!
And the iPod is just like an overpriced walkman, nobody is going to buy it.
I can get this device + a decent sized flat panel for 600 USD. What else is out there that lets me sit on the couch with a remote in my hand and watch the video content on my NAS? Sure there's Mac mini which I was about to buy ($$$ and a full computer to maintain), Myth front-end (did I mention hassle?), a modded Xbox (not enough CPU for big h.264), and probably some ugly M$ thing, but not at this cost, and not with the hassle-free user-friendliness that Apple builds into their products. And not in a sleek little package that I can hide behind a wall-mounted LCD, wireless and silent-running to boot. I'm going to have at least 2 of these, I don't want a full-function computer to maintain in each room I want to watch video, I want an appliance.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
I already did over a year ago in anticipation of this device, and don't miss it. I've got my NAS filling up right now. Sure I may "watch TV" on my 17" PB for now, but only because this device isn't out yet. I'm glad I waited and didn't get the mini.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get and I can't make you understand. I can't make it any clearer for you. The world just changed. All assuming they actually release this product that is!
Aduntu
Apr 24, 12:29 AM
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 11:57 AM
If I get a 30", then I need to also get an expensive dualink DVI KVM, but the dell is so less expensive, getting that over the apple would completely offset the cost of the switch.
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!! It is using an older design and internal chipset and requires you to disassemble it to tweak an internal control dial. Then use two fine-tuning dials on the front (one for each input) to stabilize the picture. Unfortunately, unless all your devices are using identical video chipsets and putting out identical (or as close as possible) signals, you will never get both displays synchronized. Gefen knows about the problem but remains silent about the issue. They swapped my 2x1 switch for a 4x1 switch and gave me a decent discount after I went through two 2x1s with the same issue. Finally one of their senior tech guys admitted to the problem... So if you're connecting two G5's with the same video card, go for it. but if you have different hardware, then steer well away. The 4x1 switch has no compensation dials and does it's own on the fly signal tuning for each input, just as DVI is supposed to.
Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to vent on this and maybe share someone else the frustration. Besides, dealing with Gefen is a total PITA! It's been two months of me calling them every other day trying to get a refund for something I returned long ago.
The other DVI-DL switch I know of is a matrix switch costing close to $6K. If you want the details I'll fill you in, but it's a commercial A/V electronic patching matrix suitable for running a mix of high-res or HD res displays and video walls in sports bars and/or shopping malls. :D
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!! It is using an older design and internal chipset and requires you to disassemble it to tweak an internal control dial. Then use two fine-tuning dials on the front (one for each input) to stabilize the picture. Unfortunately, unless all your devices are using identical video chipsets and putting out identical (or as close as possible) signals, you will never get both displays synchronized. Gefen knows about the problem but remains silent about the issue. They swapped my 2x1 switch for a 4x1 switch and gave me a decent discount after I went through two 2x1s with the same issue. Finally one of their senior tech guys admitted to the problem... So if you're connecting two G5's with the same video card, go for it. but if you have different hardware, then steer well away. The 4x1 switch has no compensation dials and does it's own on the fly signal tuning for each input, just as DVI is supposed to.
Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to vent on this and maybe share someone else the frustration. Besides, dealing with Gefen is a total PITA! It's been two months of me calling them every other day trying to get a refund for something I returned long ago.
The other DVI-DL switch I know of is a matrix switch costing close to $6K. If you want the details I'll fill you in, but it's a commercial A/V electronic patching matrix suitable for running a mix of high-res or HD res displays and video walls in sports bars and/or shopping malls. :D
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 01:48 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
Also
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
Apple will never release a Midtower for the simple fact that this market is the most saturated PC market and Apple is not willing to get into a price war where the margins are already paper thin. same reason u will never see a lowend $599 Macbook. That stipped down iMac is a joke
(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
Also
aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
Apple will never release a Midtower for the simple fact that this market is the most saturated PC market and Apple is not willing to get into a price war where the margins are already paper thin. same reason u will never see a lowend $599 Macbook. That stipped down iMac is a joke
Blackcat
Sep 20, 10:49 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
But EyeHome, Neuston MC500 and lots of others already do this. My EyeHome happily squirts anything on my Macs on to my TV or Hifi and lets me browse the web too.
Why is iTV special?
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
But EyeHome, Neuston MC500 and lots of others already do this. My EyeHome happily squirts anything on my Macs on to my TV or Hifi and lets me browse the web too.
Why is iTV special?
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 04:02 PM
there were actually three redundant cooling systems, but they all failed.
in honesty i think it's unfair to claim that they were unprepared, or that there were maintenance safety protocol issues.
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.
of course, this all should be a pricey lesson to e learned from, but it could have been a lot worse. a lot.
Also, i was actually positively surprised by how direct and candid the japanese gov has been, after a bit of stonewalling at the beginning. not sure the same would have happened elsewhere.
in honesty i think it's unfair to claim that they were unprepared, or that there were maintenance safety protocol issues.
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.
of course, this all should be a pricey lesson to e learned from, but it could have been a lot worse. a lot.
Also, i was actually positively surprised by how direct and candid the japanese gov has been, after a bit of stonewalling at the beginning. not sure the same would have happened elsewhere.
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 08:08 AM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
torbjoern
Mar 13, 03:03 PM
Nuclear Power is fine by me as long as they have proper safety routines and actually follow them. Not like the ones they had in Soviet Ukraine. However, if an earthquake is enough to cause a meltdown, I doubt that I would build the plant in the first place.
takao
Mar 15, 07:02 AM
the german government seems to have decided to put the plans for prolonging the life of it's current nuclearplants on hold for 3 months to evaluate the safety, risks and if the switch away from nuclear can't be accelerated (germany already consideres nuclear power only as a 'bridge technology' until renewable power forms can take over)
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
and as a direct consequence they have decided to shut off all reactors built prior to 1981: all in all seven nuclear reactors remain shut down for the next 3 months with a complete maximum nuclear output of 7000 MW
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
mdntcallr
Sep 26, 02:28 PM
I don't know what apple would plan with this
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
Denarius
Mar 16, 09:38 AM
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/electricalgeneration.png
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Spot on.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 09:17 AM
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:15 AM
this analogy is so stretched as to make no sense.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
but even water, there are residential rates and commercial rates... you can't mix the two .. there are limits and plans.
you arent paying for the same data twice. you are trying to change the agreement after the fact.
dont like the agreement. dont enter into it.Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
Elfear
Nov 2, 01:08 AM
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
