emotion
Sep 21, 09:11 AM
Ha ha how's that for conjecture? :)
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Young Spade
Apr 25, 08:01 PM
I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
bigwig
Oct 26, 12:58 AM
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
skunk
Mar 25, 07:13 PM
You too.
Timothy
Mar 19, 01:43 PM
Long post, my apologies.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
No apologies needed. It was well-said, and I agree with you completely.
The ongoing justification of bypassing or defeating the DRM, as though this is somehow a "moral" action is pathetic. Period.
snoopy
Oct 12, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by benixau
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
whatever
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
![rhian sugden. [Gossip] Rhian Sugden Gets](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tMdoh2R9zAxLMxLQM0VCOXINrd-hDBbpjfJvq1df2GUCM6Br6EQXdQyhaMqwPMCGMGWOk62yWam1zuU2D6gemZY006I4UE1z7It1nWtrm62KuaXKrk2l2RsXyqFYRV5mN4qE2IMGD8qr9bVqIzoA=s0-d "[Gossip] Rhian Sugden Gets")
samdweck
Oct 7, 07:11 PM
yes, we can still be friends, and i am sorry about comparing you to hitler... i am jewish and know the seriousness of that!
gugy
Sep 20, 06:22 PM
I think the ITV just needs to be able to stream video (HDTV and standard), Photos and music.
My Mac is the hub, a place where I can record my TV shows using elgato and then stream it to ITV. Use itunes to buy movies, tv shows and music and then stream it to my ITV.
Simplicity is the key. I don't need ITV to have a superdrive or DVD. I have that on my Mac. Plus everybody nowadays have their own DVD player on the entertainment room. I have Laserdisc player, CD player, VHS, dishnetwork DVR and a receiver. I am not planning to get rid of anything.
ITV will be a nice addition to my entertainment system to do a single specific thing: Talk to my Mac on the other room wirelessly or by Ethernet. That's all folks.
My Mac is the hub, a place where I can record my TV shows using elgato and then stream it to ITV. Use itunes to buy movies, tv shows and music and then stream it to my ITV.
Simplicity is the key. I don't need ITV to have a superdrive or DVD. I have that on my Mac. Plus everybody nowadays have their own DVD player on the entertainment room. I have Laserdisc player, CD player, VHS, dishnetwork DVR and a receiver. I am not planning to get rid of anything.
ITV will be a nice addition to my entertainment system to do a single specific thing: Talk to my Mac on the other room wirelessly or by Ethernet. That's all folks.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:01 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 04:10 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
Maybe your energy needs are not as high?
307,006,550 USA Population
127,560,000 Japan Population
8,364,095 Austria Population
Aduntu
Apr 24, 12:29 AM
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
awmazz
Mar 11, 09:35 PM
"10.45pm GMT: Now there are reports from nuclear plant operator Tepco that the Fukushima No 2 plant has lost cooling to three of its reactors.
So that's 2 reactors at #1 plant and 3 reactors at #2 plant? Chernobyl was only one reactor, wasn't it...
Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) plant
- has six reactors, three of which were shut down for maintainence. Two of the remaining reactors, Unit 1 has significant problems with a rising temperature and in another the operator says it has lost cooling ability.
– the Unit 1 reactor has seen radiation levels inside its control room rise, and slightly higher radiation levels have been detected outside the reactor. Pressure inside the reactor is twice the normal level, and the operator has been forced to vent radioactive vapor to relieve the pressure.
Fukushima Daini (No 2) plant
– has four reactors, and in units 1, 2 and 4 of them the operator has said it has lost cooling ability.
– Tepco says pressure is stable inside the reactors of the Daini plant but rising in the containment vessels.
The massive irony of nuclear power plants actually having no power to run their cooling systems. The backup diesel generators are flooded and the backup backup batteries are depleting. They are a power company after all, they should be able to find some spare batteries while they get the diesel generators back online.
Edit: Of course, you'd think an oil company would be able to cap off a leaking oil well...
So that's 2 reactors at #1 plant and 3 reactors at #2 plant? Chernobyl was only one reactor, wasn't it...
Fukushima Daiichi (No 1) plant
- has six reactors, three of which were shut down for maintainence. Two of the remaining reactors, Unit 1 has significant problems with a rising temperature and in another the operator says it has lost cooling ability.
– the Unit 1 reactor has seen radiation levels inside its control room rise, and slightly higher radiation levels have been detected outside the reactor. Pressure inside the reactor is twice the normal level, and the operator has been forced to vent radioactive vapor to relieve the pressure.
Fukushima Daini (No 2) plant
– has four reactors, and in units 1, 2 and 4 of them the operator has said it has lost cooling ability.
– Tepco says pressure is stable inside the reactors of the Daini plant but rising in the containment vessels.
The massive irony of nuclear power plants actually having no power to run their cooling systems. The backup diesel generators are flooded and the backup backup batteries are depleting. They are a power company after all, they should be able to find some spare batteries while they get the diesel generators back online.
Edit: Of course, you'd think an oil company would be able to cap off a leaking oil well...
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
Dbrown
May 2, 10:30 PM
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows.In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
bigmc6000
Aug 29, 01:15 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
SimD
Apr 12, 11:10 PM
I remember a time when people discussed interesting news on MacRumors. :(
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Icaras
Apr 21, 04:50 AM
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
I was thinking this as well :D
I was thinking this as well :D
sterno74
Oct 26, 02:04 PM
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?