Patch^
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
I Can't see Apple adding a DVR (TV recorder) because they want you to buy TV shows, Movies and Music off iTunes not off the TV! lol. If they did, people would probably stop buying content off iTunes.
In the future I'm sure we will see more HD Content on the iTunes store and some other features :) i.e. When broadband speeds increase a bit more (HD content is huge! Ever tried watching a HD Trailer? lol)
Also I hope they change the code-name from iTv to something else because there is a Television network in the UK called ITV :O...could get confusing and possible lawsuits.
(sorry if all of this has been mentioned already)
In the future I'm sure we will see more HD Content on the iTunes store and some other features :) i.e. When broadband speeds increase a bit more (HD content is huge! Ever tried watching a HD Trailer? lol)
Also I hope they change the code-name from iTv to something else because there is a Television network in the UK called ITV :O...could get confusing and possible lawsuits.
(sorry if all of this has been mentioned already)
Derekasaurus
Sep 12, 03:27 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
I think they did it because iTV doesn't really threaten any existing Apple products, so people aren't likely to hold off buying something while they wait for it. It's still odd behavior from Apple, but I'm not complaining.
I think they did it because iTV doesn't really threaten any existing Apple products, so people aren't likely to hold off buying something while they wait for it. It's still odd behavior from Apple, but I'm not complaining.
kayle12
May 5, 10:37 AM
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
JustAGuy: Okay, I modified that for 5000 and compiled on my Athlon-Tbird. Runs in about one second on average.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
nmrrjw66
Mar 25, 10:46 AM
It's astonishing that people still listen and follow a bunch of kid ****ers.
TennisandMusic
May 2, 11:43 AM
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 06:10 PM
What is a "devout atheist"? :confused:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
Apple OC
Apr 24, 09:11 PM
Yep. I've lived a completely sheltered life, never studied my faith, and certainly never questioned it- never been in any in-depth discussions of religion, and most importantly, I do not understand why I think Christianity is legitimate rather than any other religion.
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
I believe only the things my parents have told me, and I plug my ears whenever someone says anything different. I'm completely unaware of modern science and how some people consider it to be a religion killer.
To top it off, compared to all atheists, I'm an illiterate, illogical, southern-bred moron and I will never be able to make an educated decision for myself.
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
lol ... thanks for clearing that up
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:50 PM
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
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?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 09:14 PM
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
That's not the point. The point. The point is that even before anyone discovered microbes, microbes already existed. You're welcome to insist that there's no God. But maybe you insist that there is none because although there's evidence for theism, you doubt that it is evidence for it. I'm sure many atheistic scientists who dismiss theism a priori because they believe that if God exists, His existence would force them to revise many of their scientific assumptions. I forget the title of the television program I watched, where the host asked a neuroscientist what she thought about near-death experiences. She didn't want to consider potential evidence for an afterlife because an afterlife would disprove too many physicalist assumptions about the nature of the mind.
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
firestarter
Apr 24, 12:16 PM
I'm not trying to further some Christian agenda or proselytise. I'm saying these things because I would rather support Christianity/Judaism/Atheism/whatever than Islam.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Blasphemy is only one aspect of religious control and oppression in society.
While faith is used as the reason behind the denial of rights associated with sexuality, family planning, education, electoral representation, it's ridiculous to pretend that Western Christianity is any more benign than Islam. You just notice it less, because your culture is steeped in it.
slu
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
maccompaq
Nov 11, 07:30 PM
It is looking good for Verizon to get the iPhone next year. That will take a lot of pressure off the overloaded AT&T network.
Another benefit, the Apple stock will go up a lot.
Another benefit, the Apple stock will go up a lot.
jegbook
Apr 12, 04:20 PM
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
+99
Really, the original post was totally reasonable.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
+99
Really, the original post was totally reasonable.
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 01:02 PM
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
or better yet....wouldn't living forever a hell? who would want to go to Heaven and live forever...
What makes life so sweet is that it is NOT everlasting
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
or better yet....wouldn't living forever a hell? who would want to go to Heaven and live forever...
What makes life so sweet is that it is NOT everlasting
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
faroZ06
May 2, 10:20 PM
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
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.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
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.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
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.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
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.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
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.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
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.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
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.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
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.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:39 PM
Indeed sir, that is why I tried.
Deo favente
Pax
Thank you. That's very kind of you.
Deo favente
Pax
Thank you. That's very kind of you.