eternlgladiator
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
G58
Oct 8, 03:32 AM
Three questions:
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:55 PM
Tonga (thousands of miles away) was just hit by a magnitude 6.1 earthquake. Eerie coincidence. And there was just another magnitude 6.8 aftershock in Japan. :(
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
Open your wallets for this one. Unlike Haiti, the Japanese government won't waste the money, and it will do some good.
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:08 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
They are around the same price, would you say it makes sense to count them? ;)
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:44 PM
... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:28 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Shotglass
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
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.
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.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 9, 02:50 PM
Nintendo and Sony beg to differ....
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
BJNY
Oct 4, 02:55 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.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 07:50 PM
You obviously don't work in IT or no anything about how viruses are spread. Windows can get a virus just by being on a network with an infected machine or opening an email in Outlook from someone on an infected machine. I fix these kind of issues for a living and see it all the time. The truth is its insanely easy for viruses to get onto, and hide in Windows. Windows allows the files to completely hide themselves even if hidden and system files are set to show. The only way to see them on an infected machine is to yank the hard drive and plug it into a mac or linux based machine then you can spot hidden infected files if you know where they are located.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
I believe you can also pull the hard drive and scan it with another Windows based machine to find the files also.
So please, don't start with the "as long as users are smart" myth. It can easily happen to anyone, its a flaw in the OS.
I believe you can also pull the hard drive and scan it with another Windows based machine to find the files also.
hvfsl
Apr 13, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
rtdunham
Sep 20, 12:34 PM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz...and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to build ITV inside their receivers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)...The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:34 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
takao
Mar 15, 05:07 PM
according to current reports the roof of reactor 4 broke apart/collapsed and two workers are considered missing
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
No, they weren't celibate. They're criminals. So is your pope.
So yes, it sucks that there are bad people everywhere. It also sucks that the Catholic church ordained so many child rapists, and then sheltered the child rapists from criminal prosecution by covering up child rape, and then relocated the child rapists so that more children could be raped.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
No, they weren't celibate. They're criminals. So is your pope.
So yes, it sucks that there are bad people everywhere. It also sucks that the Catholic church ordained so many child rapists, and then sheltered the child rapists from criminal prosecution by covering up child rape, and then relocated the child rapists so that more children could be raped.
sawah
Mar 18, 01:14 PM
What the hell is your problem? AT&T has broken the law. Are you content with that?
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
Do you think it's appropriate for any company to sell an unlimited service, and make every attempt possible to limit it?
And how do YOU not get the giant paragraph in their TOS that says you can't tether it to another device?? Use all the unlimited data you want on your phone. A judge isn't gonna waive that all away.
Not to mention, At&t is warning you that you are gonna get charged for it, which also covers their butts. They aren't charging you for it without telling you in advance first.
We've all know for years that our cell phone companies charge way too much for things. We still choose to pay them.
MorphingDragon
May 2, 10:02 AM
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Stupid people will be venerable to malicious intent no matter what the form or operating system. I find *nix has no viruses tune wholly justified until reality differs.
Congratulations.
Stupid people will be venerable to malicious intent no matter what the form or operating system. I find *nix has no viruses tune wholly justified until reality differs.
No comments:
Post a Comment