PlipPlop
Apr 21, 02:05 AM
In other news Steve Jobs still scared of the pure domination of Android in the smartphone market.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
I know the difference between a sign and what it signifies. But even if a group of words doesn't form a sentence, that group differs from the proposition the writer is trying to state with it. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. When someone says something I don't understand, I'll ask the speaker or the to rephrase it. I just realized that I misspelled CaoCao's screen name. But I'm sure you guys knew whom the misspelled name stood for.
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Mattie Num Nums
May 2, 09:26 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
paradox00
Oct 7, 12:15 PM
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Completely agree.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Completely agree.
OllyW
Apr 30, 03:03 AM
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:07 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 06:10 AM
Maybe the HD has a slimmed down version of Mac OS X installed on it, making it necessary to be in there, and it's very likely for caching purposes too.
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:19 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan
This is fun..
MrMacMan
Oct 9, 06:55 PM
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless. They don't have the apps and other wounderful features.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 12:20 PM
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:31 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications.
How does this work, exactly?
How does this work, exactly?
Apple OC
Apr 22, 09:03 PM
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?.
Intelligent Designer? ...
try to imagine how things could evolve and change over 4.5 Billion years ... that's right Billion.
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
Intelligent Designer? ...
try to imagine how things could evolve and change over 4.5 Billion years ... that's right Billion.
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 05:08 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
No one has to. Modern psychology already did, as has been repeated over and over again. Nicolosi is not Galileo. He's the geocentrist.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:15 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.
Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.
I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.
I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.
Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D
Lord Blackadder
Mar 25, 03:49 PM
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
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.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
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.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
No comments:
Post a Comment