ImageWrangler
Oct 9, 03:33 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
dejo
Oct 8, 10:45 AM
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
There is no way God can exist, bla bla bla...
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:25 PM
No in the TOS it states there is a limit to unlimited (5gb), deceptive.
If you can actually find the TOS specific to the unlimited iPhone data plan, it doesn't mention a 5GB cap.
Old unlimited DataConnect Plans, and old unlimited smartphone/BlackBerry plans had that wording, but the unlimited iPhone data plan didn't.
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
They don't have to make you switch. They can switch you plan automatically without you. If they do, you can probably cancel without paying an EFT since they changed the plan terms you originally agreed to.
If you can actually find the TOS specific to the unlimited iPhone data plan, it doesn't mention a 5GB cap.
Old unlimited DataConnect Plans, and old unlimited smartphone/BlackBerry plans had that wording, but the unlimited iPhone data plan didn't.
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
They don't have to make you switch. They can switch you plan automatically without you. If they do, you can probably cancel without paying an EFT since they changed the plan terms you originally agreed to.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
munkery
May 2, 04:26 PM
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
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?
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.
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.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
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?
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.
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.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by springscansing
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
skunk
Mar 27, 04:38 AM
That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. You have completely missed the point.
emotion
Sep 20, 10:40 AM
The obvious uses for a HDD to be included in the iTV have been discussed fairly extensivly. I'll try not to rehash anything, and all appologies if I do without giving credit. On to the point.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
Apple is in the hardware business. They make software and provided services to generate sales and lock you into thier hardware. They make like $.01 per song; maybe $.50 a movie. So why do it? So we'll be a new iPod/computer/iTV every few years. The same holds true for iTV. Its hardware. Apple will include anything if it makes the hardware purchase more compelling. So why the HDD in iTV? For ALL the obvious reasons. Maybe they partition an 80GB iPod drive; say 10, 10 and 60. 10GB for a "rental" service downloaded straignt to the new box. 10GB for a streaming cache from your computer. And 60GB for PRV use. Why not?
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
i3iz
Sep 26, 02:00 AM
old news...check this webpage:http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
Hunabku
Apr 20, 06:28 PM
I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
iphonedev11
Feb 15, 03:05 PM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
SPUY767
Jul 12, 08:58 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
PittAir
Apr 20, 11:11 PM
Ask yourself what you do with your phone.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Nermal
Mar 18, 03:23 PM
Does anyone know how to use the app? The readme file is empty :confused:
silentnite
May 4, 11:49 AM
Safari is not set as a default for me & I only use it if Mozilla is stalling but this is only the beginning for apple with it's continued success comes a lot of security issues for the future.
Rocketman
Sep 26, 01:12 PM
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 29, 02:44 AM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
D4F
Apr 28, 08:24 AM
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
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.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
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.
dextertangocci
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
What is up with that price???:confused: :eek:
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 08:11 AM
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
Applespider
Mar 20, 04:48 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:45 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
No comments:
Post a Comment