-aggie-
May 4, 11:59 AM
Ah!
If i remember right, last time you tried we had to take you to the White Witch of Cupertino Mountains to get rid of your tail...
Your insolence grows tiresome. :)
What does the OP mean we found a healing treasure and it has no effect? I thought we'd get an extra 5 HP for that.
If i remember right, last time you tried we had to take you to the White Witch of Cupertino Mountains to get rid of your tail...
Your insolence grows tiresome. :)
What does the OP mean we found a healing treasure and it has no effect? I thought we'd get an extra 5 HP for that.
tazinlwfl
Apr 25, 09:45 AM
Too late for that: http://www.spokeo.com/
That's crazy - I just found that site recently when searching for a potential hire... Found the dude's address, parents' name, the fact he had a sister, and how much his house was worth. First listing in Google results, too. And I don't even have an account with it. That was the free information...
That's crazy - I just found that site recently when searching for a potential hire... Found the dude's address, parents' name, the fact he had a sister, and how much his house was worth. First listing in Google results, too. And I don't even have an account with it. That was the free information...
macaddict06
Jul 21, 03:00 PM
Noo...! My MacBook is out of date before its even arrived :eek:!!!!!!
Well, no it's not.
1) it is just as fast now as it will be when you get it (read: speed won't decline)
2) As a computer owner, you know something better is coming. It's just like buying a car - buy for what you need now, worry about upgrading when the time comes
3) The MacBook won't see an upgrade for a few months - maybe a speed bump in September, but otherwise, I wouldn't expect Core2Duo in it by maybe December or MWSF '07. Till then, your MB will be perfectly fine.
Well, no it's not.
1) it is just as fast now as it will be when you get it (read: speed won't decline)
2) As a computer owner, you know something better is coming. It's just like buying a car - buy for what you need now, worry about upgrading when the time comes
3) The MacBook won't see an upgrade for a few months - maybe a speed bump in September, but otherwise, I wouldn't expect Core2Duo in it by maybe December or MWSF '07. Till then, your MB will be perfectly fine.
don.keishlong
Apr 5, 03:09 PM
Why all the hate for the jailbreak? Are you guys just too moronic to use it? Any iOS device is infinitely more capable when it is jailbroken. Without some of the apps in the Cydia store, many would say the iphone/ipad/touch is unusable. What is on your lockscreen all of you unjailbroken users? A measly clock? You cant access all your mail, notifications, calendar events, and the weather from your lockscreen? Are you serious? Oh you want to turn off bluetooth? You can't swipe across the bottom of the screen to toggle it? Want integrated google voice? Apple says no. Cydia says **** that, hell yes. I would wager that most of the jailbreak haters dont even know what its capable of nor have ever tried it before. Stay in your cave and watch shadows if you will. The rest of us will experience the real world.
Mikey7c8
Nov 7, 09:11 PM
I agree with the general sentiment of the thread. Mac users should have anti-virus if only to lessen the probability of propagating virally affected material; it is the enemy, not the av companies (well perhaps i'd make an exception for symantec ;))
Sophos has been great from my perspective, used it in one of my old positions for something like 30 workstations.
Trying it on the mac, we'll see if i'll keep it though. I will admit I tend towards the 'I'm on a mac, I don't need AV' side of the fence for the most part even though I completely agree it's a good idea in general :)
Sophos has been great from my perspective, used it in one of my old positions for something like 30 workstations.
Trying it on the mac, we'll see if i'll keep it though. I will admit I tend towards the 'I'm on a mac, I don't need AV' side of the fence for the most part even though I completely agree it's a good idea in general :)
ChrisNM
Apr 25, 09:13 AM
It's just the way you are holding your iPhone.
Bertmg
Apr 25, 11:46 AM
A lot of the science practices used now days an that will be used in the future starts being used for something it was not designed for,or better yet not "though of" (minoxidil was created for hypertension, not treatment of hair loss, Botox was used for treatment of facial spasms not make you look younger, The internet was created for research development by the government, and the list goes on and on). It is the nature of science and technology to evolve. Like it or not (I sure don't), just like Napster, Geo-location technology used for finding out even more information about you is here to stay one way or another.
Man up people! how we implement the "new" use of any technology without crossing and protecting personal rights is where we should be concentrating on (promoting solutions and protection laws). It is waste time arguing (through news articles and political speeches) defending the mere existence of something that is not going anywhere.
This is what I posted in the CNET article http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20056540-245.html#ixzz1KYPyyi19
Man up people! how we implement the "new" use of any technology without crossing and protecting personal rights is where we should be concentrating on (promoting solutions and protection laws). It is waste time arguing (through news articles and political speeches) defending the mere existence of something that is not going anywhere.
This is what I posted in the CNET article http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20056540-245.html#ixzz1KYPyyi19
citizenzen
Apr 14, 09:48 PM
Did I suggest that? I think not.
Well, you provided a cautionary tale in response to my suggestion.
That's why I asked how you felt about it.
Please note ... I asked.
If something is making money why would you cut it?
That's my question.
Well, you provided a cautionary tale in response to my suggestion.
That's why I asked how you felt about it.
Please note ... I asked.
If something is making money why would you cut it?
That's my question.
rdowns
Apr 14, 12:01 PM
Admittedly, I didn't read the article posted by rdowns, but from reading the quotes he put in the OP, I'd have to say I disagree somewhat with your comments. Sure, we should all be working together, but the point is that those who are making the most are not paying at the same share/percentage as those who are lower or middle income.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think we ought to take the far lefties and the Tea Partyers and tell them to go into a room and hammer out a deal. Then the 60% of the sane people could have real negotiations.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think we ought to take the far lefties and the Tea Partyers and tell them to go into a room and hammer out a deal. Then the 60% of the sane people could have real negotiations.
Tomorrow
May 3, 09:02 PM
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
The cost of change. There's a difference.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know.
No, once again, it's not about comfort; it's about experience. I learned mostly SI units when I was in college, I'm quite comfortable with using those units - but the industry doesn't use those units. I learned, and became an expert in, the units used by the industry. You would ask millions of engineers, technicians, etc. to throw away years or even decades of experience simply to change a system that isn't broken.
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
The cost of change. There's a difference.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know.
No, once again, it's not about comfort; it's about experience. I learned mostly SI units when I was in college, I'm quite comfortable with using those units - but the industry doesn't use those units. I learned, and became an expert in, the units used by the industry. You would ask millions of engineers, technicians, etc. to throw away years or even decades of experience simply to change a system that isn't broken.
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
darrens
Aug 4, 08:28 AM
Apple could go a long way by keeping their inventory short and getting customers the latest technology quickly.
I think I remeber reading that exact point in an interview with an Intel exec - they like the way Apple can bring a product to market quickly, and use innovative technologies in their chips before anyone else.
I think I remeber reading that exact point in an interview with an Intel exec - they like the way Apple can bring a product to market quickly, and use innovative technologies in their chips before anyone else.
blow45
Mar 29, 04:03 PM
As threads progress, sometimes the conversation evolves. You added nothing of value in your post.
Yeah while talking about Japan's protectionism of their agricultural production really adds to the topic of discussion... cause everyone here who clicks on this thread via the main page wants to hear about Japan's agriculture.
Let's "evolve" the thread to encompass kamikaze pilots, kabuki theatre, zen Buddhism, sushi and whale hunting too...:rolleyes:
Yeah while talking about Japan's protectionism of their agricultural production really adds to the topic of discussion... cause everyone here who clicks on this thread via the main page wants to hear about Japan's agriculture.
Let's "evolve" the thread to encompass kamikaze pilots, kabuki theatre, zen Buddhism, sushi and whale hunting too...:rolleyes:
citizenzen
Apr 14, 12:32 PM
Our financial situation is recognized by some as a great threat.
Maybe we can get the military to invade it. ;)
Maybe we can get the military to invade it. ;)
geta
May 6, 08:06 AM
Apple only went with intel because IBM was never going to be able to make a G5 laptop chip. Why are people so closed minded when it comes to change?
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:41 PM
[OFF TOPIC]
Also when you say American do you refer to any citizen in the American continent or just the people that was born in the United States of America.
As a US citizen, that is a pet peeve of mine. The Americas are pretty friggin' big continents, not a country.
Less is more, and more is less when to taxes you refer...
If you have a big refund, it means that you pay too much, so you are not being very good at your day to day application of math.
Either way an American receiving a big tax refund means that a lot of his (or her) money was better used by the government than what he (or she) could have done with it. Taking us back to the same subject: poor application of Math skills.:o
To be honest, it isn't that simple. The government doesn't make it easy to even understand what the heck they're asking for on the forms.
Also when you say American do you refer to any citizen in the American continent or just the people that was born in the United States of America.
As a US citizen, that is a pet peeve of mine. The Americas are pretty friggin' big continents, not a country.
Less is more, and more is less when to taxes you refer...
If you have a big refund, it means that you pay too much, so you are not being very good at your day to day application of math.
Either way an American receiving a big tax refund means that a lot of his (or her) money was better used by the government than what he (or she) could have done with it. Taking us back to the same subject: poor application of Math skills.:o
To be honest, it isn't that simple. The government doesn't make it easy to even understand what the heck they're asking for on the forms.
trondah
Mar 31, 03:30 AM
What everybody would like to know, is Safari any snappier?
Hammer God
Apr 7, 09:31 AM
Apple Competitors: "I wish we had $50 billion in cash to do this sort of thing."
-hh
Sep 11, 09:17 AM
beatles
That explains London, in spades.
-hh
That explains London, in spades.
-hh
shartypants
Apr 26, 02:17 PM
As much as I want to see Apple sell phones, I also like to see healthy competition to keep away anti-trust issues. Apple is for people who like quality high-end stuff and Android is for Kmart shoppers ;)
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 01:57 AM
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
maxp1
Aug 7, 03:28 PM
I thought the Woodcrest processors were unsuited for multi-processor configurations. Anyone with more info?
typecase
Aug 7, 04:42 PM
The power supply is on top like the rumor sites said it would be. This seems like a stupid design decision to me. The power cord will hang over everything else. They probably did it out of necessity, but my dual G5 is still prettier.
Also, with the move to intel, can I use the PC version of the same card?
Also, with the move to intel, can I use the PC version of the same card?
McGiord
Apr 10, 07:00 PM
OK Guys more results.
OpenOffice: initially prompts the error message and after clicking on Yes, it gives your so famous 288...so after manipulating the original expression, the mathematical expression is changed...or modified to deliver 288
OpenOffice: initially prompts the error message and after clicking on Yes, it gives your so famous 288...so after manipulating the original expression, the mathematical expression is changed...or modified to deliver 288