Best Trend Tattoos Design

There's a market for games with more depth that sell at higher prices, and there's a market for cheap on-the-go games that are great for downtime on the train or waiting at the airport.

Hopefully Apple and Nintendo jumps into the other's market at some point and we no longer have to have this debate.

one word: nope.

Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.

P-Worm

Are you drunk?

I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.

javajedi:

70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.

I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.

You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.

I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense

Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.

Thank you. I thought it was only me.

We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??

No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.

*shrug*

I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.

Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.

There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.

Originally posted by alex_ant

Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.

i agree with your balanced comment

it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"

things are just not that black and white:p

ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.

What? Oh please. That's simply not true. How the hell could you have kids if you were ALL called to chastity?

Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...

If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...

Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.

Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .

PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.

Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).


The hardware components in a server go through much more testing for reliability. They are meant to work 24/7.

Pretty much what you get is same stuff with better components/materials and etc. Does BMW differ any from FORD? Not really but in general what's believed they use better stuff.

Same thing with PCs. Server it's just a nice window for companies like Dell to put a higher $$ tag on it. What consumer gets is better warranty and USUALLY less power simply to prevent overheating issues that arise from long term continous usage.

I use server chips in my home PC for that exact reason. They are no different but "should" last longer and that is why I spend extra $$ on them.

Just a term.

*nice article that points few differences between a xeon and a Core 2 Quad.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14555

The small ones, like satellites dishes. You can buy them at Jaycar.

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productResults.asp?whichpage=3&pagesize=10&keywords=wind&form=KEYWORD

Pretty much like a weather vein or TV aerial. Provides a couple of hundred watts at 24V or 12V. I was thinking about one for if there is ever a blackout (ie a drunk hitting a power pole, it's happened) instead of needing a petrol generator.

Every home generating 500W of their own wind power with one of these little things on their roof in a city of Los Angeles with a million homes = 500,000,000 watts. As well as a solar panel at 500W too is up to a billion watts not required from any central power source.


idea time only. Wind produces the most power during the night (not during peak load times) and again I would not want the noise from the wind turbines all over hte place.

I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people? Logically I imagine from a Catholic perspective it makes sense. My sister and brother in law both being Catholic gives me a bit of an insight into this topic and both are rather progressive.

Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?

No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.

Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?

I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"

Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.

Mac Mini vs iTV as a pure home theatre component

Mac Mini advantages:

1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.

Mac Mini Disadvantages

1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.


iTV advantages

1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.

iTV disadvantages

1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.


iTV suggestions.

I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:

1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.


A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.

No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)

Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...

Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.

SNIP (Just to save space)

I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.

To quote one of your articles: It was 15MWe, 46 MWt, and was used to develop and test a wide variety of fuels and machinery over its lifetime. Its Helium outlet temperature was 950�C, but fuel temperature instabilities occurred during operation with locally far to high temperatures. As a consequence the whole reactor vessel became heavily contaminated by Cs-137 and Sr-90 [1]. Concerning beta-contamination AVR is the highest contaminated nuclear installation worldwide as AVR management confirmed 2001
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.

You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.

EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.

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.

I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.

My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.

/rant

The problem isn't making applications more "multiprocessor aware" (although that is an extremely difficult thing to do well), the problem is simply that the vast majority of applications spend 95% of their time idling. So, no matter how "aware" your app is, it won't make it do nothing any faster ;).

Added to that, not all problems have parrallelisable solutions.

I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.

IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.

man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)

Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)

Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon

Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.

Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.

so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?

if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.

sad really..

I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.

Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.

On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".

A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.


sorry, last post...

great post....

all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..

Weird. That's the beauty of an SMB/CIFS NAS. It can run on Linux with ext3 and Samba and you'd think it was Windows/NTFS. Supporting >4GB is just a matter of getting the right format that the NAS understands, because it will translate that to a generic SMB call.

My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.

And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.

B

Well, to be fair, this is not a high-end box we're dealing with. We bought a router that supports SMB via a USB external HDD. The formatting pains were when we thought we were ever going to disconnect the drive and take it anywhere with us, or plug it directly into a computer for transferring large chunks of data. We don't ever do either of those, so we basically just went through all that work for nothing. The OP asked for things they might not like, maybe they'll run into this one useless headache at some point in their future :p

Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.

Reading the situation in America, I can see now why European atheists don't feel they have to back up their claims: they're rarely challenged on their positions.

It seems in America it's a touchy issue :\