AP_piano295
Apr 23, 12:35 AM
I don't think atheism is a belief system, but it requires belief. Not believing in a god requires believing there isn't a god. You could say I'm just twisting words there.
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I agree on all your points. I just can't bring myself to completely deny the existence of god, not through fear, but through fear.. of insulting my own intelligence. We can't prove god exists or doesn't exist, it seems impossible that we ever will. So I don't deny the existence of god, I do think it's unlikely and illogical, hence why I lean towards atheism (agnostic atheist).
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
dwsolberg
May 17, 03:58 PM
When Verizon offers the iPhone, I'll switch. Service is horrible in the area where I work -- so much so that on some days, I just don't get any calls and it won't allow outgoing calls for hours at a time. However, before I changed jobs, I rarely if ever had any issues with dropped calls, failed calls, or missing sound on my calls.
It's amazingly frustrating.
It's amazingly frustrating.
BRLawyer
May 2, 01:52 PM
So let me get this straight:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:21 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
Grow some perspective.
This is the problem with low-low pricing. If Apple charged $40k, maybe all the "professionals" would be onboard!
I think it is great to see the simplification of the product line. FCE always seemed an odd product out.
This is the internet. People are more invested in their egos than in understanding each other, and since several people have chosen to put words in my mouth to attack me, there's no point in really trying to advocate for the product here. Let the haters have the thread, I'm out.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:15 PM
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
killr_b
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
I can't really decide what to think of an 8 core mac pro.
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.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
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.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
novagamer
Jul 12, 05:22 PM
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
EricNau
Apr 25, 12:02 AM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
MacBoobsPro
Oct 26, 10:36 AM
16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.
How many chips would it span though?
mdntcallr
Sep 26, 02:28 PM
I don't know what apple would plan with this
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's
also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.
and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.
also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.
give us a mid range upgradable mac.
firewood
Apr 28, 06:20 PM
I want it to be like a PC, a Mac or a Laptop.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
Why should Apple care what you want it to be like when they know what more people actually buy? More people purchased iPads last quarter than MacBooks or iMacs. And reports are the most of those iPad were used for exactly the same kinds of things that most PCs are actually used for.
Ya know, mainframe and minicomputer companies used to call personal computers toys, not real computers. How can it be a real computer without a punched card reader and a line printer?
The vast majority of those mainframe and minicomputer companies no longer exist.
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 07:42 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Lara F
May 5, 01:53 PM
Funny bit of irony - I went to Lake Placid NY for a sports competition last fall where a main sponsor was AT&T - logo on the side of the boards, booth set up etc.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
Tower went down second day and there was zero service for 24h. :o
Now that AT&T offers a Canada plan with no extra long-distance fees, I may actually start talking on my iPhone for more extensive periods of time. Should be interesting to compare with Verizon...so far my frustration in NYC has been more over unavailable/slow internet connection than dropped calls.
notabadname
Apr 20, 05:57 PM
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
It about not knowing what the software writers are doing with my own device. Not whether I need someone to "hold my hand".
It about not knowing what the software writers are doing with my own device. Not whether I need someone to "hold my hand".
Multimedia
Oct 25, 11:15 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new dual quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)Yes Clovertown is pin compatible with teh XServe as well and let's hope they come out at same time. :)
Say, aren't the new dual quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)Yes Clovertown is pin compatible with teh XServe as well and let's hope they come out at same time. :)
AP_piano295
Apr 26, 01:27 PM
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
I'm getting tired of shooting down this massive and prevalent mis-conception over and over again so I'll just copy paste my post from the "why are there so many atheists" thread.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
teasphere
Apr 13, 12:24 PM
I've just gone and read through the tweets from @fcpsupermeet, which describe the event. From comments like this (I pick this one as an example, loads of people are expressing the sentiment) I was expecting something really consumer-focussed, rather than:
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
Now, I'm not a video pro. I'll admit I'm a hobbyist: I was part of my university's film making society, and I've done various projects myself, but it's not my professional gig. But I can't see anything here that shows Apple moving away from the pro market. As far as I can tell they've done a really ambitious ground-up Cocoa rewrite of FCP, streamlining the workflow to make it quicker to use (no more render dialogs!), and at the same time building in loads of new tech like colour matching throughout.
Is the only thing people are bothered about the fact that they changed the UI? Because other than that, I just can't see what the complaints are about. We haven't heard any actual confirmed statements of features being removed, so why assume that any crucial ones have been? They'd have been nuts to switch away from a timeline-based system like iMovie did, and so of course they didn't do that. They rewrote everything from scratch to remove a bunch of legacy baggage (like the lack of multithreading, and the Carbon UI that prevented it going 64 bit), which is awesome, but I completely can't see any evidence of a change of focus.
Amorya
Just to clarify, I was speaking more to true high-end pro scalability... and I tried to be clear that while the product is still "pro" software alone is not the whole story. Many products in the truly pro arena are highly scalable and it just seems that Apple is moving away from this and back to single computer apps. No servers, no farms, no virtualization, etc. and as I said I am an IT professional and have and do support many systems like I mentioned and Apple is becoming essentially impossible to utilize in an environment like that.
We're talking about two different things. You are talking from an end-user/single user "pro" side and I am talking about multi-user, large-scale, modern datacenter, "pro" side. And also, I'm saying that I'd LOVE to see Apple more in that space, not less as it is going.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий