milo
Jul 13, 10:45 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
lukewho
Sep 12, 06:35 PM
I have no need for a separate tv; would like to just use my cinema display or iMac's screen...I am generally fine just sticking with DVDs and the occassional iTunes TV episode impulse-buy when I have some TV-jones. But I would occassionally like to watch me some live television - without having to make room for a separate TVbox in my cramped studio apartment. This new iTV box does nothing to fix this gap in technology, right? Basically, It puts my computer's media onto the TV, but not TV media onto my computer. I have heard about possibility of tuner cards, but don't know much about them. So, without having to pay-per-episode or per movie from the iTunes store what are some suggestions?
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:35 PM
I wish I could leave. Macrumors is to the GPA what the bug zapper is to the fly.
obeygiant
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
I know that there is no chance whatever that the gods espoused by any religion are anything but contemporary imaginations of forces to be explained or propitiated, either in the natural world or in the psychology of homo sapiens. To claim that any one is real, or more real than any other, is blindly to ignore their obvious common derivation.
That about sums it up for me.
That about sums it up for me.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:37 AM
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt.
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 04:30 PM
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
True it has its own list of crap apps but it is much more open. Apple current system is closed. We have rejection with no reasoning why it was rejected and on top of that 84k+ apps on the apps store are crap.
So both apple system and Jail break system are full of same percentage of crap but at least there is a better chance of finding great apps in the Jail broken world because you have both the apple side and the open side to work with.
Multimedia
Oct 12, 11:08 AM
You're welcome. You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.You think Dell will sell them for even less on Black Friday? - November 24 for you unfamiliar with the term.
Yeah I hope Apple decides to pull the trigger on the Clovertown option as soon as they can get product. That would be so cool if they do.
Definitely not 2 x 24" I think. I have the 24" and it's native HD which I use all the time as my primary television set with EyeTV2 and an EyeTV 500 - now EyeTV Hybrid. But I think the idea of having the 30" with the 24" is kind of ultimate - in a stock video card withtout a fan kind of way.
I almost did buy a second 24" in August. Then I decided that I would wait, pay down my Dell credit some more, then get the 30" which is what I'm doing now thanks in part to your coupon deal although I was prepared to pay $1444. The coupon saved me another $104 including tax. Very excited. Should arrive next week sometime.
Another reason to have a 30" is to wed it to a MacBook Pro as the ultimate mobile home base second screen. But I think the next screen I buy will be another 24 for my Mac Pro 8-core so I can leave this one on the Quad G5 that I am not selling. I think the combo of the 24" + 20" is the best budget way to go - total just over $1k. But if you're going to spend more it might as well be a little over $2k for the 24" + 30" I think.
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
Yeah I hope Apple decides to pull the trigger on the Clovertown option as soon as they can get product. That would be so cool if they do.
Definitely not 2 x 24" I think. I have the 24" and it's native HD which I use all the time as my primary television set with EyeTV2 and an EyeTV 500 - now EyeTV Hybrid. But I think the idea of having the 30" with the 24" is kind of ultimate - in a stock video card withtout a fan kind of way.
I almost did buy a second 24" in August. Then I decided that I would wait, pay down my Dell credit some more, then get the 30" which is what I'm doing now thanks in part to your coupon deal although I was prepared to pay $1444. The coupon saved me another $104 including tax. Very excited. Should arrive next week sometime.
Another reason to have a 30" is to wed it to a MacBook Pro as the ultimate mobile home base second screen. But I think the next screen I buy will be another 24 for my Mac Pro 8-core so I can leave this one on the Quad G5 that I am not selling. I think the combo of the 24" + 20" is the best budget way to go - total just over $1k. But if you're going to spend more it might as well be a little over $2k for the 24" + 30" I think.
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 11:08 AM
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
iindigo
May 2, 10:20 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
yg17
Mar 26, 09:27 AM
And all this coming from the organization who protects a bunch of child rapists. Why are people taking them seriously anymore?
chrono1081
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
+1 The first thing I did was ask friends of mine who work on films out in CA what they thought of this and they were amazed and can't wait to get their hands on it. (I myself am no film editing expert thats why I asked my friends who are). As always though there will be the people who know nothing and flip out about how new awesome features are sucky just because its Apple who brought it out.
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
+1 The first thing I did was ask friends of mine who work on films out in CA what they thought of this and they were amazed and can't wait to get their hands on it. (I myself am no film editing expert thats why I asked my friends who are). As always though there will be the people who know nothing and flip out about how new awesome features are sucky just because its Apple who brought it out.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Max on Macs
Jul 12, 03:08 AM
I personally believe that in an effort to cut noise and heat on these higher priced machines, two problems that have always plagued them, the Pentium 66 and 75 will be in use in these systems.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:45 PM
Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
If you do what he says? That's not enough - what have you learned? Salvation lies in sola fide, i.e. faith alone according to Luther. That is, faith in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. Protestants can do what they want and still go to Heaven. And if you're Catholic, you need to do good deeds and have faith in God - you can't get around the latter.
So - what happens to those who live a pious life and die without ever hearing about Jesus? According to my Christian teachers, those would go to hell. Those who grow up in totalitarian regimes where religion is banned, such as North Korea, will thus go from one instance of hell to another because they don't fulfill the requirements for salvation. Sounded quite self-righteous to me, but I cut the Christians some slack on that point anyway.
But what about the Jews? "Yes what about them?" They don't believe in Jesus as the world's Saviour either - not even today. "Oh, they are under some special set of rules so they will go to Heaven anyway." Yeah, right... The more I knew about Christians, the less I understood them. That's when I realised that something was fundamentally wrong (no pun intended).
If you do what he says? That's not enough - what have you learned? Salvation lies in sola fide, i.e. faith alone according to Luther. That is, faith in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. Protestants can do what they want and still go to Heaven. And if you're Catholic, you need to do good deeds and have faith in God - you can't get around the latter.
So - what happens to those who live a pious life and die without ever hearing about Jesus? According to my Christian teachers, those would go to hell. Those who grow up in totalitarian regimes where religion is banned, such as North Korea, will thus go from one instance of hell to another because they don't fulfill the requirements for salvation. Sounded quite self-righteous to me, but I cut the Christians some slack on that point anyway.
But what about the Jews? "Yes what about them?" They don't believe in Jesus as the world's Saviour either - not even today. "Oh, they are under some special set of rules so they will go to Heaven anyway." Yeah, right... The more I knew about Christians, the less I understood them. That's when I realised that something was fundamentally wrong (no pun intended).
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 03:42 PM
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
Yup, and early PCs had bugs too. Keep living in the past . . .
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
Yup, and early PCs had bugs too. Keep living in the past . . .
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:08 PM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'? Please explain that to me. I never said Premiere. I made the switch to FCP in 2005 after 10 years of solid AVID work, yet I still use them both - just depends what job I'm on and who I'm working for. I stand by what I say - It looks like a fun 'toy' to play with. I have my doubts when it comes to some serious sound track organization and color correction. Reminds me a lot of when someone gave me a demo of Speed Edit by Newtek. It's really interesting how alike these seem to be.
Cheers!
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'? Please explain that to me. I never said Premiere. I made the switch to FCP in 2005 after 10 years of solid AVID work, yet I still use them both - just depends what job I'm on and who I'm working for. I stand by what I say - It looks like a fun 'toy' to play with. I have my doubts when it comes to some serious sound track organization and color correction. Reminds me a lot of when someone gave me a demo of Speed Edit by Newtek. It's really interesting how alike these seem to be.
Cheers!
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 12, 09:45 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.
--Eric
What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 08:16 AM
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
javajedi
Oct 8, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:44 PM
Um....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Yeah but he should have been using Taun Tauns. ;)
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Yeah but he should have been using Taun Tauns. ;)
citizenzen
Apr 22, 10:52 PM
If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?.
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
In my view, Christianity is an extreme mythologizing of the unknown and unknowable.
In my view, a huge portions of those "really crazy doctrines" are wrong.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Exactly.
Pray to Ba'al lately?
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).