jwdsail
Sep 20, 11:42 AM
Apple iPod Video Express... (I'm hoping to kill the 'Chicken Little' iTV name will get Apple sued stuff)
A hard drive? Hard to believe, I'd think some flash memory as a buffer, maybe 4GB? Perhaps you can add a HD via the USB 2 port? Too small to have a 3.5" drive.. May be too small for a laptop drive.. A 1.8" drive would add too much to the cost, wouldn't it?
I think w/ the HDMI output, and the price, what we're staring at is really a wireless upscaler... Take any content from your Mac, and wirelessly upscale to the native res of your TV (up to 1080p)...
If this is the case, I may just buy one in place of the Mac mini (w/ something other than Intel Integrated *SPIT* Graphics BTO, that will more than likely never happen...) that I've wanted to add to my TV...
Shrug.
Just my $0.02US
jwd
A hard drive? Hard to believe, I'd think some flash memory as a buffer, maybe 4GB? Perhaps you can add a HD via the USB 2 port? Too small to have a 3.5" drive.. May be too small for a laptop drive.. A 1.8" drive would add too much to the cost, wouldn't it?
I think w/ the HDMI output, and the price, what we're staring at is really a wireless upscaler... Take any content from your Mac, and wirelessly upscale to the native res of your TV (up to 1080p)...
If this is the case, I may just buy one in place of the Mac mini (w/ something other than Intel Integrated *SPIT* Graphics BTO, that will more than likely never happen...) that I've wanted to add to my TV...
Shrug.
Just my $0.02US
jwd
Don't panic
Mar 14, 05:10 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
EvilEvil
Apr 9, 07:31 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
PCUser
Oct 7, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
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.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
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.
latergator116
Mar 20, 07:30 PM
What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere! :rolleyes:
I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.
I wasn't talking about DRM or iTunes.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
desdomg
Mar 20, 04:52 PM
Glad you are having fun. Many would argue that the it is the music industry that is doing the pillaging and it is the consumers pockets that are being raided. Legal and right are not always the same things. How come there is no competition in song pricing anyway?
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 04:19 PM
javajedi: Well, well... I finally figured out GNUstep and ported your Cocoa program to it--works 100%. Funny thing it's slower than the Java one, but it might be the extra crap I put in there (menus, etc.). 10 seconds compared to 7 seconds with Java. But that's still faster than 70 seconds on a G4. I'll be making a pure C port if anyone hasn't.
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
munkery
May 2, 01:26 PM
The article -> http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/
Here is how it works:
In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open “safe” files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open. The file is decompressed, and the installer it contains launches ...
If the user continues through the installation process, and enters an administrator’s password, the software will be installed.
Here is how it works:
In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open “safe” files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open. The file is decompressed, and the installer it contains launches ...
If the user continues through the installation process, and enters an administrator’s password, the software will be installed.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:49 PM
My thoughts exactly. It almost has to be the next step for :apple:
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
I guess. I figure they will eventually, but I hope Apple releases an actual TV first.
mojohanna
Apr 14, 05:32 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
Huntn
Mar 15, 08:20 PM
Once again my mind has been boggled on the Rachel Maddow show. Tonight she is talking about the problems at shutdown Japanese reactors, reactors that I think were shutdown before the earthquake, not problems with the reactors themselves, but problems with the HUGE POOLS of spent fuel rods, with accumulations of fuel rods in far larger amounts than what is found in an individual reactor. According to her, they need to be cooled for up to ten years before they can be put into dry storage. Having lost their cooling water they could be more dangerous than a reactor cause of the quantity of rods and they are heating up and causing explosions potentially releasing radioactive particles into the environment.
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
Based on what I said in post #193. Nuclear Reactors can never be truly shutdown. *Without* a continuous flow of cooling water they become dangerous and self destructive very quickly. See this link: The Bane of Nuclear Power- Waste Storage (http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html).
motulist
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
notabadname
Apr 20, 05:57 PM
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
It about not knowing what the software writers are doing with my own device. Not whether I need someone to "hold my hand".
Lara Logan
It about not knowing what the software writers are doing with my own device. Not whether I need someone to "hold my hand".
Pants
Oct 9, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
ahhhh...so to get performance from the damned thing, I have to write arcane altivec code yes? well, sorry, I and many like me, neither have the time nor the patience to hand wring performance like this. Jeez, the days of hand optimising code are thankfully long gone, except, it seems with a g4. And we have to of course assume that even this mythical 18 million flops is based on the assumption that we can get the altivec unit supplied with data? hmm... This is not acceptable - spec fp biased? well, yeah, because it doesnt justify your end argument - the fact that most other companies are 'happy' to stand by it is merely justification for its 'biased' nature yeah?
hmm.....
kdarling
Jul 10, 09:18 AM
Is the battery life as bad as I've heard? I think I prefer the Incredible to the Droid X (mainly because of size), but I hate not being able to make it through the day without charging my phone.
The Incredible lasts all day (or even two) for me with an internal-sized extended Seidio. If I Slingplayer'd more, I'd get a physically larger one.
The first thing I get for any smartphone (if the maker allows it) is an extended battery. Not only do I immediately get longer usage time, I still have the original as a spare to swap in if necessary (like coming home after using up my phone and wanting to go right back out again - great on vacations).
It took a few days to adapt to Android, but if you've used lots of smartphones it's not a difficult transition. Especially once you discover the joy of universal voice input.
The Incredible lasts all day (or even two) for me with an internal-sized extended Seidio. If I Slingplayer'd more, I'd get a physically larger one.
The first thing I get for any smartphone (if the maker allows it) is an extended battery. Not only do I immediately get longer usage time, I still have the original as a spare to swap in if necessary (like coming home after using up my phone and wanting to go right back out again - great on vacations).
It took a few days to adapt to Android, but if you've used lots of smartphones it's not a difficult transition. Especially once you discover the joy of universal voice input.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
ChrisA
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
As fas as wouldn't I rather pay for only the shows I watch? Sure! But Apple's current pricing is much to prohibitive. It's cheaper for me to pay $50 a month for DirecTV with the HD option than to pay $2 a pop
So you must watch more than 25 TV shows a month? Man what "time sink". At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month. That's reasonable. What I would like to do is export from Final Cut to iTunes so I can watch it on the large screen. Currently I would have to burn a DVD and "sneaker net" the disc to the TV, watch it then re-cut, re-burn, re-sneakernet..... This should be usful to anyone who owns a video camera.
This should also help sell a lot of large RAID systems and then you will need another large storage system so "Time Machine" can automatically make those backup copies
So you must watch more than 25 TV shows a month? Man what "time sink". At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month. That's reasonable. What I would like to do is export from Final Cut to iTunes so I can watch it on the large screen. Currently I would have to burn a DVD and "sneaker net" the disc to the TV, watch it then re-cut, re-burn, re-sneakernet..... This should be usful to anyone who owns a video camera.
This should also help sell a lot of large RAID systems and then you will need another large storage system so "Time Machine" can automatically make those backup copies
Mike Teezie
Sep 20, 10:26 AM
I'm buying this thing the day it drops.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
dmelgar
Jul 10, 08:09 AM
Is the battery life as bad as I've heard? I think I prefer the Incredible to the Droid X (mainly because of size), but I hate not being able to make it through the day without charging my phone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
No comments:
Post a Comment