econgeek
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Migrated to the new thread.
scottlinux
Sep 13, 10:32 PM
If you don't think so, then you are paying way too much attention to the content and not enough to the process by which they are conveying that content.
Well if the content is crap, who cares to watch? Content of TV is more important to me. I'd rather see a fascinating news show or program over rabbit ears than watch the Today Show in HD.
My post of this news has nothing to do with content.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...
Well if the content is crap, who cares to watch? Content of TV is more important to me. I'd rather see a fascinating news show or program over rabbit ears than watch the Today Show in HD.
My post of this news has nothing to do with content.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 09:10 PM
Motorola wasn't the first company to create an iProduct and using an Apple may have infringed on The Beatles' production company's logo (not The Beatles' logo) but it was not a US company. Do you really think that Jobs got the idea for using the Apple name from The Beatles?
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
AidenShaw
Mar 26, 11:23 PM
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
Yes, we've heard of this - it's the "XP syndrome" all over again.
Yes, we've heard of this - it's the "XP syndrome" all over again.
portishead
Apr 11, 08:16 PM
They are abandoning it. I know quite a few FCP editors who have switched to Avid MC5 or Premiere Pro.
We are large facility with about 10-12 full time FCP editors and we will probably switch to Avid MC5 unless Apple provides *needed* features for the future.
I'd there's a general mood of 'Apple is abandoning FCP' in the post community and facilities/users are setting up their exit strategies.
And its a strategy. Buying into new software is expensive and time consuming.
Overreact much? FCP hasn't even been announced and your company is already talking about jumping ship? I call b.s. I'm in LA and I haven't heard anyone talking about switching anything. What needed features do you need that don't already exist?
We are large facility with about 10-12 full time FCP editors and we will probably switch to Avid MC5 unless Apple provides *needed* features for the future.
I'd there's a general mood of 'Apple is abandoning FCP' in the post community and facilities/users are setting up their exit strategies.
And its a strategy. Buying into new software is expensive and time consuming.
Overreact much? FCP hasn't even been announced and your company is already talking about jumping ship? I call b.s. I'm in LA and I haven't heard anyone talking about switching anything. What needed features do you need that don't already exist?
Silentwave
Aug 27, 06:58 PM
That's the old pricing mate :) 1.83 GHz Yonah/ Merom is $240.
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
Now. But how much have iMac prices changed since release? I don't think they have. They released the iMac and MBP lines around the same time Yonah was intro'ed, and the iMacs did not see any speed bumps or price changes that I know of. Therefore they should be able to implement similar pricing with Conroe @ 2.4GHz, just with a profit margin closer to the iMac release amounts.
Of course they could always go for the 2.13GHz version, which is less expensive, and still plenty faster than the existing 1.83 :)
Buschmaster
Aug 16, 10:36 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
Al Coholic
Apr 27, 09:42 AM
And Tea Party members :DYou do know that Al "the accidental politician" Franken was at the forefront of this right?
Unless that loon switched ideologies I don't think he even drinks tea.
Unless that loon switched ideologies I don't think he even drinks tea.
Deefuzz
Nov 17, 09:00 AM
a rather dissapointing car list .. what gives with not a single newer model from VW than 2005 ? hardly any new alfas, no audi a1, a5, a7 ? no fiat 500 abarth ?
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
Actually I have to agree with this. There are somewhere around 1000 cars on the list, and some of the choices are confusing. No V series Cadillacs (only 1 Cadillac total actually) yet there are a crap ton of Nissan Skylines.
Hopefully they will fill in some of the roster with DLC, but then there's the issue of pumping more money into a game for content that should have been included from the start.
I still have it preordered and very much look forward to it, but the car list is a little confusing and disappointing.
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
Actually I have to agree with this. There are somewhere around 1000 cars on the list, and some of the choices are confusing. No V series Cadillacs (only 1 Cadillac total actually) yet there are a crap ton of Nissan Skylines.
Hopefully they will fill in some of the roster with DLC, but then there's the issue of pumping more money into a game for content that should have been included from the start.
I still have it preordered and very much look forward to it, but the car list is a little confusing and disappointing.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:05 PM
Well, I guess the Open Source concept backfired at Google and everyone else doing Android. Open Source is a great concept, but when handled the wrong way, it does lead to fragmentation.
The problem is that all the happiness about Android being an open system will now turn into disappointment to many hobbyists and tweakers, and also to developers.
The fact that Apple keeps iOS closed is for a good reason, but at least it created a system to be able to advertise and sell apps. The quality control may not be perfect, but at least so far we haven't heard of an iOS viral app. iOS devices are very tight, protecting their own integrity.
Well, let's see what happens. We need Android to keep poking on Apple's creativity to make better products.
I'm not against Android; I may get an Android phone when I see one worth my money.
The problem is that all the happiness about Android being an open system will now turn into disappointment to many hobbyists and tweakers, and also to developers.
The fact that Apple keeps iOS closed is for a good reason, but at least it created a system to be able to advertise and sell apps. The quality control may not be perfect, but at least so far we haven't heard of an iOS viral app. iOS devices are very tight, protecting their own integrity.
Well, let's see what happens. We need Android to keep poking on Apple's creativity to make better products.
I'm not against Android; I may get an Android phone when I see one worth my money.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 01:34 PM
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).When we hit that wall, I'll let you know. :p
Hey everybody the Big News is
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
CBS Morning now looks totally pathetic. What a revolting development. CBS hires Katie and don't advance the news department to high-def while NBC totally goes High Def with Merideth. Wow! Talk about a cou-de-gras!
NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.
Hey everybody the Big News is
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
CBS Morning now looks totally pathetic. What a revolting development. CBS hires Katie and don't advance the news department to high-def while NBC totally goes High Def with Merideth. Wow! Talk about a cou-de-gras!
NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.
arkitect
Mar 22, 12:55 PM
Competition is good.
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 02:29 PM
I wouldn't call over 50% of the N American market a small, local network.
I am sorry, but it is... 150 million people is a small market compared to the other +6 billion people. Europe alone is more than 700 million people...
I am sorry, but it is... 150 million people is a small market compared to the other +6 billion people. Europe alone is more than 700 million people...
wpotere
Apr 28, 08:11 AM
Sad, pathetic, misguided
Speaking of which...
Speaking of which...
SC68Cal
Sep 18, 11:12 PM
I went ahead and bought my MacBook Pro because I can't do my schoolwork without a laptop. So, I'm really not paying much attention these days about future announcements :)
ugp
Jun 11, 01:57 PM
We are being told that inventory will be limited for non preorder customers. Basically, if you want one, you better preorder.
About opening before apple stores...
Thats what i thought too, but the only thing we were told is no later than 8am opening. Basically we can open anytime up to 8am.
I am praying that the Managers here get told the same thing by the DMs as well. Would make things a lot easier. If Radio Shack announces they are opening before everyone else you better prepare for a lot of customers.
About opening before apple stores...
Thats what i thought too, but the only thing we were told is no later than 8am opening. Basically we can open anytime up to 8am.
I am praying that the Managers here get told the same thing by the DMs as well. Would make things a lot easier. If Radio Shack announces they are opening before everyone else you better prepare for a lot of customers.
Consultant
Mar 31, 03:09 PM
So Google is becoming big brother of the open wasteland? :D
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:50 PM
Ever heard of DoCoMo?
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
And....
Trying to say that DoCoMo is the majority of the other 19%? Doubt it.
Hellhammer
Dec 5, 03:30 AM
hahe same here.. though i was close on the first alfa and rally challenge but the ferrari one: 1st corner you are first place and then you can just finish the race 'safe' but the lambo one... what a PITA .. it even spined out on me in a fast corner just because i went off the throttle slightly
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
Come on, Lambos are the best! :p It just requires some learning and tuning of the breaks. Love my 841hp Murcielago ;)
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
Come on, Lambos are the best! :p It just requires some learning and tuning of the breaks. Love my 841hp Murcielago ;)
Chundles
Jul 27, 09:56 AM
at last, I may be able to build a system that will run Vista well!
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.
majorp
Sep 19, 05:08 AM
Im still on for today, 4 hours and counting.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
leekohler
Mar 3, 10:30 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Oh please. Can the condescension. If you know what I meant, there no reason for you to give me a dictionary link. And gee- could you be a little more insulting assuming that I don't know what sodomy is? Wow. Hey Bill, newsflash- I'm an adult- 43 years old. I went to college. I know what words mean, but I guess I should have been more clear and said "anal sex". Next time I will. I also know that people express themselves with words in different ways and that words can have several meanings due to their context. Apparently you do too. And by the way, I did mean "feel", not "believe". Your zeal on this subject is indicative of that.
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
That's an awfully big "if" Bill- and certainly not one I'm willing to bet my life on. BTW- man made God and the Bible. You guys made your own rules.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
But you want to make sure Big Brother keeps us from being able to marry. You absolutely do. It's about control for you, Bill. Admit it.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
They're called condoms, Bill. Sensible people use them to protect against the very things you describe. Because ya know, we DO know about such things. Oh wait- that's against your Catholic teaching. So much so, that your religion tells people in Africa not to use them, making the AIDS epidemic even worse. Thanks for that.
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
Bill- if you were sincere about this, you would support the gay rights movement and support equal marriage rights for gay people. Your examples are silly. Everyone has the right to speak out against opinions they oppose. In none of the examples you used is anyone trying to legally deny anyone anything. People are entitled to their opinions. people are NOT entitled to deny others legal rights simply because they disagree with them. No one is trying to pass a law against Glenn Beck or you. You guys ARE trying to pass laws against us.
No, but standing on your porch and walking to a restaurant are usually morally indifferent actions.
Lee, first, do me a favor when we correspond with each other, would you? Please don't say "feel" when you mean "believe" or "think." This conversation isn't about emotion. It's about truths and falsehoods.
Second, by the definition of sodomy at the dictionary at Dictionary.Reference.com), same-sex couples do engage in sodomy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy).
Oh please. Can the condescension. If you know what I meant, there no reason for you to give me a dictionary link. And gee- could you be a little more insulting assuming that I don't know what sodomy is? Wow. Hey Bill, newsflash- I'm an adult- 43 years old. I went to college. I know what words mean, but I guess I should have been more clear and said "anal sex". Next time I will. I also know that people express themselves with words in different ways and that words can have several meanings due to their context. Apparently you do too. And by the way, I did mean "feel", not "believe". Your zeal on this subject is indicative of that.
Third, if the Catholic Church is right, I didn't make the rules. God did.
That's an awfully big "if" Bill- and certainly not one I'm willing to bet my life on. BTW- man made God and the Bible. You guys made your own rules.
Fourth, again, I say what I believe. Others need to chose what they'll do. I'm not their dictator. I'm not their lawgiver. But if they're doing something they shouldn't do, they may get negative consequences here or hereafter. But I won't give them them those consequences. I won't punish anyone for what he does in his bedroom. I don't have the authority to do that. And I don't want Big Brother to spy on same-sex attracted people when they're in bed together. I'm not going to ask my policeman friend Kurt to batter down your bedroom door if I think you're having sex. Moral rightness or wrongness is one thing. Whether it's prudent to outlaw some potentially immoral action is something else.
But you want to make sure Big Brother keeps us from being able to marry. You absolutely do. It's about control for you, Bill. Admit it.
Fifth, sure some opposite-sex sex is dangerous, too. Whether a man or a woman is the recipient, anal sex an cause colon leakage. Anal sex kills epithelial cells and semen suppresses the recipient's immune system. It needs to do that during vaginal sex, too, because if it didn't do it, white blood cells would attack the sperm. Vaginas are well-suited for sex partly because they contain a natural lubricant that rectums don't contain. Does anyone notice a hint of natural teleology there, hmm?
They're called condoms, Bill. Sensible people use them to protect against the very things you describe. Because ya know, we DO know about such things. Oh wait- that's against your Catholic teaching. So much so, that your religion tells people in Africa not to use them, making the AIDS epidemic even worse. Thanks for that.
Sixth, for people who think I'm trying to control them or punish them, I'll put the shoe one the other foot. How many liberals attack Beck personally when they don't even listen to him? How many try to shout down conservatives or to silence them when they say something that the shouters and the would-be silencers hate to hear? How many generalize hastily about people "like me" when they assume that anyone who thinks "gay" sex is immoral is obviously a hateful homophobe? How many would try to limit my free speech by outlawing my so-called hate speech? How many don't distinguish between condemning a person and condemning an action?
Bill- if you were sincere about this, you would support the gay rights movement and support equal marriage rights for gay people. Your examples are silly. Everyone has the right to speak out against opinions they oppose. In none of the examples you used is anyone trying to legally deny anyone anything. People are entitled to their opinions. people are NOT entitled to deny others legal rights simply because they disagree with them. No one is trying to pass a law against Glenn Beck or you. You guys ARE trying to pass laws against us.
Lesser Evets
Apr 6, 03:45 PM
Should be called XOOSH: the sound of a toilet flushing.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق