Anonymous Freak
Oct 4, 03:28 PM
Does anyone know how much power a Cloverton 2.33GHz will draw compared to the current Woodcrest 3GHz? I hope Apple's power supply is adequate for Cloverton, 4 SATA hard drives, 2 optical drives, and better PCIe graphics card.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:40 PM
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
Gelfin
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
JnericMBP
Sep 1, 12:43 AM
Another fallout from terrible AT&T service is that in many shops and restaurants, at least in the San Francisco area, and especially Berkeley, you can't check in using location services like Foursquare or Facebook Places since there isn't adequate coverage- eg: no service, no signal etc.
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:35 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Look, I have used several android phones due to changing networks a few times over the last year. And I will say this, an Android phone cannot last 2 days even on sleep mode. U put ur phone on ur desk unplugged at night with 100% battery, and by the morning, it will mysteriously go down to 60-70%. And trust me, I know everything about android from rooting, to roms, to kernals, so I know I am not doing anything dumb like leaving bunch of apps open and running.
lipinski77
Sep 20, 01:36 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Mikael
Jul 12, 03:42 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
AtomBoy
Oct 8, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
[B]Who really gives a damn?
wallpaper cartoon emo.
wallpaper cartoon emo.
stock vector : Cartoon emo
This is the superb emo love
They are two cute emo
wallpaper cartoon emo.
emo rangers cartoon sour
[B]Who really gives a damn?
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 03:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
This is a specious argument because they didn't put that in your contract. Your contract says you have no interest in tethering, yet you use it anyway. So it's not AT&T that's doing anything illegal.
If you think AT&T is doing something illegal, then take your dollars to Verizon.
iMeowbot
Sep 20, 10:03 AM
DVR capabilities, i really doubt. I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if the box had access to all the regular iTunes stuff (store, podcasts, radio).
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:19 AM
It's true. You see the video, you have doubts. And if someone says "You didn't see what you just saw",
Its not a great comfort.
Its not a great comfort.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:35 PM
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges of apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:30 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:40 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
Uh, not even close. Nice try though.
So be it but untill that thing can run a full version of let's say Autodesk Maya and install all the plug-ins in the world I want it will still only be a mobile toy. A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years. Pack me a dual quad with HT that can run for 100 days at 100% without breaking a sweat. That's a PC.
Good lord, you so far away from the point that you may never find it. Holy crap.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Those darn little desktop computers are never going to replace our minicomputers! They're little toys! *SNORT*
Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
Yeah. Those machines that they were running to create Avatar? They aren't PCs, smart guy.
I agree but they will never match real desktops. Technology advances. Something you can do today let's say in 2 hours you will do in 1 next year on new equipement. Thing is that next year you will ramp up the quality of the final product still getting same 2 hour work period. It's like that for ages and will never stop :)
Those minicomputers will NEVER be able to do the work of our mainframes! Enjoy your toys!
Uh, not even close. Nice try though.
So be it but untill that thing can run a full version of let's say Autodesk Maya and install all the plug-ins in the world I want it will still only be a mobile toy. A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years. Pack me a dual quad with HT that can run for 100 days at 100% without breaking a sweat. That's a PC.
Good lord, you so far away from the point that you may never find it. Holy crap.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Those darn little desktop computers are never going to replace our minicomputers! They're little toys! *SNORT*
Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.
You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/
4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.
Yeah. Those machines that they were running to create Avatar? They aren't PCs, smart guy.
I agree but they will never match real desktops. Technology advances. Something you can do today let's say in 2 hours you will do in 1 next year on new equipement. Thing is that next year you will ramp up the quality of the final product still getting same 2 hour work period. It's like that for ages and will never stop :)
Those minicomputers will NEVER be able to do the work of our mainframes! Enjoy your toys!
Sounds Good
Apr 9, 02:27 PM
The fact that a Mac notebook normally runs high temps is not a flaw, or "issue" or problem. They are designed to run at such temps. The fact that those who are new to Mac are unfamiliar with this doesn't make it a flaw. They just need to adjust their thinking.
Adjust their thinking? With all due respect, I hate this type of (fill in the blank).
So then, if someone can use their Windows laptop on their lap -- while wearing shorts -- without a problem... then they try using a Mac laptop the same way but they burn their legs (or worse)... you would suggest that they just need to adjust their thinking?
Seriously??
Adjust their thinking? With all due respect, I hate this type of (fill in the blank).
So then, if someone can use their Windows laptop on their lap -- while wearing shorts -- without a problem... then they try using a Mac laptop the same way but they burn their legs (or worse)... you would suggest that they just need to adjust their thinking?
Seriously??
theelysium
May 16, 05:52 PM
I have a huge drop call and coverage issue at my new home in Rancho Cordova, CA. I live by Jackson HWY (16). I have been excessive with my reports through my AT&T iPhone app "Mark The Spot". After 6 months of reports for only about 10% of the issues (I have so many issue here 10% was a lot :eek: of reporting!) I've experience they sent me a message letting me know that my reports helped pinpoint a tower issues and it will be replaced in a few weeks!
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
I know AT&T has issues, but I'd like to see if Verizon would actually do something like this! I am not happy with the network experience I've had here, but I am really happy to see that my voice was heard from a large company using innovative tools created by them on my iPhone.
I can tell that the tower is currently being worked on, because my service is getting worse. It won't be long now that I'll finally be able to a constant signal and hopefully no more dropped calls.
Before I received the message that they would replace the tower I ordered an AT&T micro cell. I think I'll install it anyway just to see how it will improve my coverage. This also brings up another point that they are giving us the ability to fix coverage issues with the Micro Cell they are offering. I know it's $150 (expensive), but at least they are offering an alternative for you.
One thing I've noticed as a customer is any aspect of the New AT&T that was legacy Cingular seems in the most part to be fine. It's all the junk they merged in from the legacy AT&T Wireless. This goes for call centers, towers, policies, etc. If I call customer service and have an excellent experience I'll ask the rep, "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" Every time they say Cingular. Of course if I have the opposite and ask "Are you legacy Cingluar or AT&T?" They either don't know what the word legacy means (which I then have to explain) or they say of course AT&T! I wish Cingular stayed Cingular and let AT&T die off! Legacy AT&T is the cancer in the New AT&T which is just Cingular with AT&T's name.
It's silly to think that the AT&T name is so valuable that they'd buy the crappy company just to use their stupid :eek: name. Who cares if AT&T is as recognizable as Coca Cola overseas?! Why not be so great at what you do that your name (Cingular), becomes as recognizable as Coca Cola! Cingular shouldn't have bought recognition... they should have tried to earn it! If they had tried to earn their recognition we wouldn't have Legacy AT&T's cancer in our cell phone company!:(
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:40 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
samcraig
Mar 18, 11:15 AM
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, aye?
When ATT provides options (whether you like them or not) - you have a choice. You can either choose to take advantage of the options, not use them, buck the system and deal with the consequence, or terminate your agreement and move to another company.
When they didn't provide options- people were up in arms over not having any choices..
Everyone can be an armchair critic, lawyer, etc... I would imagine that few if ANYone here is qualified to determine what ATT (or other carriers) can or cannot/should or should not do when it comes to their business model. You speak (naturally so) for yourself and some of your fellow customers.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, aye?
When ATT provides options (whether you like them or not) - you have a choice. You can either choose to take advantage of the options, not use them, buck the system and deal with the consequence, or terminate your agreement and move to another company.
When they didn't provide options- people were up in arms over not having any choices..
Everyone can be an armchair critic, lawyer, etc... I would imagine that few if ANYone here is qualified to determine what ATT (or other carriers) can or cannot/should or should not do when it comes to their business model. You speak (naturally so) for yourself and some of your fellow customers.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:12 PM
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.
Huh?
Which have killed more? Hint: it's not nuclear reactors.