leekohler
Apr 28, 04:04 PM
Whoa, seriously? Providing both a birth certificate and a local paper announcement of the birth back three years ago is "hazy"?
Yeah, you heard it here first. It was highly suspect, ya know. It was a plot from the day he was born to forge a birth announcement, because the Muslims knew it would be their chance to get one of their own elected. Christ. The stupidity never ceases.
Yeah, you heard it here first. It was highly suspect, ya know. It was a plot from the day he was born to forge a birth announcement, because the Muslims knew it would be their chance to get one of their own elected. Christ. The stupidity never ceases.
lazyrighteye
Aug 11, 05:34 PM
Hahahha coverage maps don't mean jack.Everyone in the wireless business knows they are gross approximations of the reality.
juliet leonardo dicaprio
Meeting Leonardo Dicaprio OH
Movie , your faveromeo
Leonardo+dicaprio+romeo+
Leonardo DiCaprio | Ask.com
Leonardo+dicaprio+titanic+
with romeo Leonardo
Leonardo DiCaprio was the
a Leonardo+dicaprio+romeo+
Leonardo DiCaprio
Successconference at dicaprio
Leonardo+dicaprio+romeo+
the eminent Montague clan.
him why do Leonardo
For leonardo dicaprio played
and juliet Leonardo
HOW OLD IS LEONARDO DICAPRIO
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:49 AM
And if you beleive that, you are misinformed.
"Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off."
Does not say anything about not tracking when you turn Location Services off, it just says that it will delete the log. This suggests that it did NOT track before when the option was off, otherwise Apple would also address that.
Show me where any article explicitly says that they still track when it is disabled.
"Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off."
Does not say anything about not tracking when you turn Location Services off, it just says that it will delete the log. This suggests that it did NOT track before when the option was off, otherwise Apple would also address that.
Show me where any article explicitly says that they still track when it is disabled.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
dave420
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
Homy
Jul 20, 11:44 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?:p
Hastings101
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I don't care if Google does it, that doesn't give Apple free reign to do it as well. Both Google and Apple need to be looked at a bit more closely.
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
Also, it's free publicity for Apple, especially if this becomes a big case :p
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:58 PM
Who wants to go through the trouble of doing a software change to unlock their phone.
I seem to be missing some information...:confused:
First, a locked phone is ONLY a problem if you have cdma. If you go GSM the "locking" is software based and can be unlocked. The networks here unlock it for you for a fee. (others do that too but that is another story...)
Secondly, if the "iPone" is GSM based you an sell the same phone both locked and unlocked. The question whether a phone will be "subsidized" is a deal between Apple and the carrier. Just how much the phone will be is up to the carrier.
As an example: Here in europe we have vendors that sell cellphones where you can pick which carrier you want and pay different prices for the phone dependent on what carrier and type of contract you pick. However, you can also buy the buy the phone without a contract (unlocked)
...so why do we have this discussion whether this or that carrier will carry it?
If the new "iPhone" is a hit everybody will carry it. Of course, assuming Apple allows it.
I seem to be missing some information...:confused:
First, a locked phone is ONLY a problem if you have cdma. If you go GSM the "locking" is software based and can be unlocked. The networks here unlock it for you for a fee. (others do that too but that is another story...)
Secondly, if the "iPone" is GSM based you an sell the same phone both locked and unlocked. The question whether a phone will be "subsidized" is a deal between Apple and the carrier. Just how much the phone will be is up to the carrier.
As an example: Here in europe we have vendors that sell cellphones where you can pick which carrier you want and pay different prices for the phone dependent on what carrier and type of contract you pick. However, you can also buy the buy the phone without a contract (unlocked)
...so why do we have this discussion whether this or that carrier will carry it?
If the new "iPhone" is a hit everybody will carry it. Of course, assuming Apple allows it.
nick123222
Mar 26, 12:23 PM
Looks like they are going for another Snow Leopard (aka disappointingly small) release.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
Do you use stacks for accessing applications? If yes, then why wouldn't you want to use launchpad? It is like the application stack but makes organising apps into folders so much easier and allows you to find apps easier. Yes you could just use spotlight to find apps quickly, but not everyone likes doing this.
Launchpad is one of the features that I am most looking forward to for easy app management and access.
Also, I use dashboard every day usually as I use to see the time on an analogue clock when I want to check the time (I find an analogue clock easier to visualise time with), currency conversion, stickies, translator, and iStat Pro.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
Do you use stacks for accessing applications? If yes, then why wouldn't you want to use launchpad? It is like the application stack but makes organising apps into folders so much easier and allows you to find apps easier. Yes you could just use spotlight to find apps quickly, but not everyone likes doing this.
Launchpad is one of the features that I am most looking forward to for easy app management and access.
Also, I use dashboard every day usually as I use to see the time on an analogue clock when I want to check the time (I find an analogue clock easier to visualise time with), currency conversion, stickies, translator, and iStat Pro.
milo
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Why?
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p
NJRonbo
Jun 15, 09:02 AM
Those of you still looking to order from the Shack...
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:05 AM
I don't think you'll see IPS screens in MacBook Pro's or Air in the future.
Apple is working on the mass market now and mass market don't care about quality of the screens specially on the portables.
If you need colors and better screen then Apple will sale you "****ing glossy amazing" 27" display. :)
Shame really, because the Pro in me would like a more color accurate screen, even for a little extra Apple Tax. C'mon Apple! You can release a $3000 laptop, you know you can!
Apple is working on the mass market now and mass market don't care about quality of the screens specially on the portables.
If you need colors and better screen then Apple will sale you "****ing glossy amazing" 27" display. :)
Shame really, because the Pro in me would like a more color accurate screen, even for a little extra Apple Tax. C'mon Apple! You can release a $3000 laptop, you know you can!
moonzilla
Jul 27, 12:08 PM
i think it's safe to assume that Apple will be making an effort to differentiate the Macbooks and the MBP. As of right now, other than the video card, and backlit keyboard, there doesnt seem like a solid reason to fork over an extra 800-1200 bucks. i expect Apple to use the core2 for this purpose. put merom only in the mbp, and force the power-hungry users to upgrade to the pro model.
mozmac
Nov 29, 09:21 AM
Dirty mother farters. How dare you try to claim a share of the music players. You see, they do more than just music. Would if someone bought one without putting any music on it!
skunk
Mar 5, 04:12 AM
“teaching students from a young age that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly natural … will [cause them to] develop into adults who are desensitized to the harmful, immoral reality of sexual deviance.”As if that was a bad thing.
Belly-laughs
Nov 28, 08:12 PM
I give Universal $1 to compensate for downloading their whole library illegally? Now, that�s a good deal!
Marx55
Aug 27, 10:53 AM
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
Thanks. Yet, I am looking for the return of the Cube (reasonably priced this time, to be a best-seller) or the Mac mini "Pro". BTW, I do not want to pay "twice" for the monitor.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
Thanks. Yet, I am looking for the return of the Cube (reasonably priced this time, to be a best-seller) or the Mac mini "Pro". BTW, I do not want to pay "twice" for the monitor.
Tones2
Apr 19, 03:31 PM
Chord patterns are indeed part of the genre; however, when you also copy the melody and simply change the title AKA(George Harrison..."Here comes the sun"), then, you get the pants sued off of you.
I think pretty much all blues songs have the same melody. Only the lyrics change. :)
I think pretty much all blues songs have the same melody. Only the lyrics change. :)
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:25 AM
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 04:55 PM
The right wing has once again demonstrated to what extent it's pathetic. Obama once again acts like the only grown up amongst a crowd of children. Nothing new.
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:08 PM
The GPU performance decrease is much more severe that you let on...
...VDA (Video Decode Acceleration) framework support : Intel 3000HD isn't supported, forget hardware accelerated decoding of Flash content in H.264.
Apple does not install Flash Player on newer machines, so this is not a problem.
Try youtube.com/html5 (http://www.youtube.com/html5) or ClickToFlash (http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/) or other HTML5-Safari extensions (http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/html5%20extension)!
OpenCL. Big selling point for Snow Leopard, absent from most of their hardware line-up now.
You obviously know nothing about OpenCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL). OpenCL is not hardware dependent. OpenCL programs can run even on old 300 MHz PowerPC processors, if someone writes a OpenCL-compiler for this platform.
...VDA (Video Decode Acceleration) framework support : Intel 3000HD isn't supported, forget hardware accelerated decoding of Flash content in H.264.
Apple does not install Flash Player on newer machines, so this is not a problem.
Try youtube.com/html5 (http://www.youtube.com/html5) or ClickToFlash (http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/) or other HTML5-Safari extensions (http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/html5%20extension)!
OpenCL. Big selling point for Snow Leopard, absent from most of their hardware line-up now.
You obviously know nothing about OpenCL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL). OpenCL is not hardware dependent. OpenCL programs can run even on old 300 MHz PowerPC processors, if someone writes a OpenCL-compiler for this platform.
cloudnine
Nov 28, 07:27 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly... "oh, well this ipod thing plays music and it's the best mp3 player out there... how can we get this to benefit us for absolutely no reason?"
asinine.