HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:36 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
Multimedia
Oct 2, 06:07 PM
Since the 2.33GHz Clovertown processors are priced the same as the 3GHz Woodcrests - $851, I think it's fair to say the current 3GHz Quad Core Mac Pro costs about $825 per core while the 8-core 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pros will cost only about $412.50 per core. That looks like real progress to me. On the GHz front, the current one running @ 12GHz is about $275 per GHz of power while the 8-core running @ 18.64GHz is about $177 per GHz of power. That looks like real progress as well. :)
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:32 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99 like Namco museum.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 12:40 PM
What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 05:30 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
And there's one more thing. Back then, it was Mac and only mac.
Today, its an ecosystem. Hard to beat.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
And there's one more thing. Back then, it was Mac and only mac.
Today, its an ecosystem. Hard to beat.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Even if there is, He might be off creating other beings on the other millions of habitable planets.
He could very well be not unlike a comet, and He'll be back in a million or so of our years, to see how we have fared.
I'm not waiting up, like for Santa. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Offtobed.gif
Even if there is, He might be off creating other beings on the other millions of habitable planets.
He could very well be not unlike a comet, and He'll be back in a million or so of our years, to see how we have fared.
I'm not waiting up, like for Santa. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Offtobed.gif
CaryMacGuy
Mar 18, 09:11 AM
I will do what I want when I want on a device that I purchased. If AT&T doesn't like it, I can tell them where to go. They can cancel me and I will just take my business to Verizon. I am sure they don't want that.
Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 12:36 PM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
Carmelo Anthony is Johnson#39;s
Carmelo Anthony drops 39
M5 Carmelo Anthony Player
LaLa and Carmelo Anthony
Carmelo Anthony cornrows hair
Carmelo Anthony amp; LaLa Vazquez
and Carmelo Anthony get
Carmelo Anthony Poster (3877)
Tatouage Carmelo Anthony New
and Carmelo Anthony
Apple OC
Apr 23, 05:42 PM
exactly ^^^ you either believe or you don't
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Moyank24
Mar 26, 01:06 AM
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
You're joking right? That's a heck of a statement you make there. Is that based on any fact? Or just your ignorance?
I'm assuming that by stability you mean children?
chaoticbear
Apr 14, 04:36 PM
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 11:42 AM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Yes!
280466
Yes!
280466
Millah
Apr 13, 02:23 AM
FCP has been plagued with FUNDAMENTAL problems since it's creation. And initial peaks seems to suggest that instead of building on it's basis and creating a stronger, leaner, more professional tool Apple has once again decided to ditch it's professional (and there must be a distinction) users for the prosumer crowd.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
THX1139
Jul 12, 04:50 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
fxtech
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:38 AM
I see lots of opinion here, but not a lot of facts. While there are some retro packs, where is a collection of 25 games � less than a year old � for the Nintendo DS?
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
Here's more like reality...
Bookworm... $20 on the Nintendo DS, but 99�-$2.99 on iPhone.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own. What is the claim that Nintendo will go the way of Blockbuster other than opinion?
The plethora of mini-game based Wii games is a fact. The fact that those specific titles have not been ported to iOS (although I suspect that if I looked I'd find facsimiles of all languishing as failed $.99 games) does not invalidate the point.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:56 PM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
darkplanets
Mar 11, 09:23 AM
NB. I guess the most critical things that can get damaged in Japan are the nuke power stations, the reports so far say none are leaking.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
AT&T can do whatever they want to.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
desdomg
Mar 21, 02:52 AM
I still say **** it and download mp3s - the music catalogue on iTMS is awful anyway. It may be "illegal" but there are lots of illegal things that most people do anyway and the world hasn't come to a stop. In the UK a few years back we had the Tory government introduce a new tax called the Poll Tax. Its introduction caused mass riots and non payment. Eventually the government had no choice but to change the law. We live in a democracy for crying out loud. The way half of you are arguing with your "its illegal" ******** sounds like we live in a corporate state. The music industry needs to be forced to introduce price competition - not force the consumer to pay rediculous prices for a song. $1 is crazy pricing. Let the market decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment