moooosedude
Jul 20, 08:27 AM
The Mactopus??
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
Neb154
Aug 7, 03:39 PM
I'm real excited for the new iChat and Spaces, along with these new "top secret features..." They better be good!
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
The finder is definately my bet for something to be revamped, along with probably iLife which will be revamped for leopard.
Edit : Also something more with virtualization (boot camp area) as they did not touch that really.
rdowns
Apr 28, 08:04 AM
Step out of your little fairytale world
I loves me some irony.
I loves me some irony.
AidenShaw
Jul 14, 11:22 PM
top heavy is just idiotic.
Has anyone noticed that three or four disk drives actually weigh a lot more than a power supply?
Especially a modern power supply! (Those Apple IIfx supplies had a lot of iron - but today a 600watt supply is pretty light.)
Get a life (and an IEC 90° cord) and forget whining about power supply top or bottom.
Worrying about "Top heavy" is simply nonsense - I have top PS systems and bottom PS systems, and "top heaviness" has never been an issue - the centre of gravity of my systems is usually determined by the number, capacity, and location of the disks.
Has anyone noticed that three or four disk drives actually weigh a lot more than a power supply?
Especially a modern power supply! (Those Apple IIfx supplies had a lot of iron - but today a 600watt supply is pretty light.)
Get a life (and an IEC 90° cord) and forget whining about power supply top or bottom.
Worrying about "Top heavy" is simply nonsense - I have top PS systems and bottom PS systems, and "top heaviness" has never been an issue - the centre of gravity of my systems is usually determined by the number, capacity, and location of the disks.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
shartypants
Apr 25, 02:05 PM
Those two people just want their "15 minutes of fame", be interesting to see how this plays out.
mc68k
Dec 6, 01:20 PM
I have only done one. But I didn't feel as if I could start the race, leave, come back and have won. The race I did, I watched. My guy was in 1st the up until the last lap, and the person in 2nd over took him. I am sure if I was not there to instruct him to "over take" he would not have done it and I would have gotten 2nd.
Maybe I just need to level up?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec
Maybe I just need to level up?yeah your bspec driver will really suck until he's leveled up a bit. still havent figured out why you would want more than one bspec driver, prob for the later enduro races? got my bspec up to 12, he's racing and overtaking much better now. the amount the bspec driver levels up every time is small, so it's very grind-y but at least you don't have to watch it, and you get some diff gift cars than the same race in a-spec
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
bonehead
Nov 29, 03:23 AM
Wil universal get what they want?.. Apple is not totally powerless in this potential negotiation but i doubt steve has the power to laugh in their faces. Apple does not make music, it sells it. A seller can hardly laugh in the face of the producer of goods (or the gatekeeper of those goods). Want proof?.. walmart vs apple. Apple makes ipods.. Walmart refused to deal with apple the way apple wanted.. guess who lost in that battle.. walmart of course.. they are merely a seller, apple is the gatekeeper of ipods. The same is with the music studios.. apple is a seller, music companies are the gatekeepers. They can dictate who can and can't sell their music and while every corporation is motivated by profits.. they can always take their music and go home. Sure they lose but so does apple or they can make their music exclusively available only on microsoft service. You might not buy the music but you aren't 300 miliion americans. I gurantee apple does not want to be sitting by idly watching microsoft steal a market they grew. Naw, steve is not laughing in anyone's face.
Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
Any record company is free to make their music exclusively available on a service that is incompatible with 75% of the mp3 players owned by those 300 million Americans but I don't think many will.
Stella
Aug 7, 04:43 PM
Is Leopard going to take advantage of the 64 bit Dual G5?
Whats the point? Its history.
My guess is, that its how Tiger is now.
Whats the point? Its history.
My guess is, that its how Tiger is now.
gugy
Aug 11, 12:22 PM
Seriously - unlocked phones won't float in the US. The carrier gives huge discounts and most of us don't really care about switching services (a lot people just get all their friends on the same network so all calling is free). I don't care how sweet the iPhone is. I'm not gonna pay 300-400 dollars for a phone when I can get one for 20 or less and stay with the carrier I plan to stay with anyway. Also note that I get a pretty nice company discount with the big guys on my plan and most all of my friends/family are with 1 carrier so it'd really be stupid of me to go with a diff carrier...
I agree with you. Unfortunately the USA cell phone market is sucks.
For me Apple has these options to make the iphone as popular as the ipod.
� offer it to all USA carriers. GSM and CDMA
� offer their own Apple network (hard option, because people would wait to see first if the network is reliable and wait for the end of their current carrier contracts to move to it)
� Make it very affordable to entice people to buy it. Less than $200
I agree with you. Unfortunately the USA cell phone market is sucks.
For me Apple has these options to make the iphone as popular as the ipod.
� offer it to all USA carriers. GSM and CDMA
� offer their own Apple network (hard option, because people would wait to see first if the network is reliable and wait for the end of their current carrier contracts to move to it)
� Make it very affordable to entice people to buy it. Less than $200
sososowhat
Sep 13, 09:50 AM
One could run a Folding@Home process on each core :D
Dagless
Aug 5, 04:18 AM
i thought this game was vaporware
They finally announced the release date at E3 2010.
I don't think I'll be getting it. I bought GT PSP and its as if the developers actively tried to suck all the enjoyment out of the series.
They finally announced the release date at E3 2010.
I don't think I'll be getting it. I bought GT PSP and its as if the developers actively tried to suck all the enjoyment out of the series.
arkitect
Mar 4, 03:41 AM
There is no risk of destroying society.
I never realised we had such power�
Earthquakes when we have sex and now getting married destroys whole societies.
;)
We are SO screwed!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kysrpgpMw31qzkf1ao1_500.jpg
I never realised we had such power�
Earthquakes when we have sex and now getting married destroys whole societies.
;)
We are SO screwed!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kysrpgpMw31qzkf1ao1_500.jpg
videomaven
Apr 6, 06:08 AM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:51 AM
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
totally agree
Currently i'm using a 12.1" notebook(PC) with a 19" desktop LCD for photo editing :p
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
totally agree
Currently i'm using a 12.1" notebook(PC) with a 19" desktop LCD for photo editing :p
shamino
Jul 14, 05:35 PM
Ok, here's ANOTHER can of worms. Since we're on EFI now and can boot in Windows. It means our video cards, etc. don't have Open Firmware BIOS. Does that mean ANY "Windows" video card will work as long as OS X has drivers for it? Does OS X even have generic VGA drivers?
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
Interesting question, but I don't think any of us here will have the answers.
PCs don't use EFI. I don't know if a generic AGP/PCIe card can be initialized by EFI, or if the card will need some EFI code to be on-board.
As for OS X, I think we can be fairly certain that Apple will only bundle drivers for cards that Apple sells. If you install a third-party card, they will probably tell you that you'll need a driver from the card's manufacturer - that's what they've historically told customers.
Generic VGA drivers? I'm sure they were developed - they'd be very useful during that time when OS X/Intel was internal-only. But I wouldn't expect them to be bundled with a shipping copy of the system software.
Now, assuming that the Mac firmware (including whatever EFI drivers they include in it) is capable of initializing a generic video card, then there should be no need for more than a device driver, which the card vendors can probably provide, if they are so inclined. If the cards will require special ROM code for EFI, however, then we're back to the same problem that plagued the PPC systems.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 5, 08:44 PM
I agree I for see FCP needing Mac OS X Lion
T-Reese
Aug 5, 03:38 PM
cant wait... merom book pros cmon!!!!
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 02:03 PM
EDGE is not meant to compare with EVDO, UTMS is.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
takao
Dec 7, 05:04 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
ah the british lightweight .. i remembered it much much harder from gt4 .. since this time around lightweight just means being under 1200 kg and british ;) so my 300 kW TVR was qualified which of course smoked the competition
that said i find it stil ldissapointing that opposed to gt4 you can't difference between imperial and metric measurements more seperate
which means either mp/h and HP or km/h and kW
which is unfortunate since nobody really uses kW except for taxes ;)
rovex
Mar 22, 12:49 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:14 AM
Very cool. Now to find apps (os10.5 direct blind support?) that can make use of all those cores. :cool:
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
One app would be iTunes. I noticed iTunes was running 14 threads last night. Any time you have a multithreaded application or are running multiple single thread aplications more cores can help.
Some server applications (the Apache web server and many DBMS systems) use a "process per client" model where a new process (another instance) of the server is created for each client connection. A bussy web server might have 100 copies of apache all running at once. 8 cores would help there.
LightSpeed1
Apr 6, 05:06 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.Agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment