Eidorian
Jul 13, 07:17 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
Doctor Q
Sep 12, 03:27 PM
Apple may need to take steps to avoid confusing consumers. Their multiple consumer products make it complicated for people who don't know Apple's product line, aren't particuarly technical, aren't sure which are products Mac-only and which are cross platform, and don't know how their hardware, software, and O.S. fit together.
There are plenty of people out there who don't realize iPods are made by Apple, and iTV (whatever it's true name turns out to be) will confuse them further.
There are plenty of people out there who don't realize iPods are made by Apple, and iTV (whatever it's true name turns out to be) will confuse them further.
FreeState
Mar 27, 10:09 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
rtdunham
Sep 22, 11:33 PM
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering"...It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer...there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
res1233
May 2, 10:28 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
It just keeps adding up. If the competition isn't afraid, they either don't exist or are in denial.
The last thing the old, established dinosaurs need is a serious push by Apple into mainstream gaming, with about $50-$60 billion in tow.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 11:07 PM
I think the definition is a bit tricky to nail down. I don't think that theists know that there is a God. They just believe that there is. I think my belief is just as strong as that. They may argue otherwise.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
sam10685
Sep 12, 07:29 PM
Looks like a squished Mini :p
that's the idea.
that's the idea.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 01:23 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella coolI hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella coolI hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:52 PM
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
not even interesting :cool:
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
EagerDragon
Sep 12, 08:47 PM
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Not the same as a mini. You can not play a DVD like in a mini, you can not store content on a permanent basis like you can with a mini, and is not a full computer like a mini. It has a very small subset of the capabilities of the mini but with HDMI. A mini can do the same and more.
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Not the same as a mini. You can not play a DVD like in a mini, you can not store content on a permanent basis like you can with a mini, and is not a full computer like a mini. It has a very small subset of the capabilities of the mini but with HDMI. A mini can do the same and more.
powderblue17
Apr 15, 11:51 AM
Of course nobody cares about all the straight kids out there that are bullied or at least the media doesn't. Even if they're being called gay because they're not as masculine as society expects but if they're not actually gay then forget it. Those people might as well just kill themselves. At least that's what I've seen from experience.
Backtothemac
Oct 8, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:38 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
sushi
Mar 14, 09:52 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Thanks for posting this article.
So much misinformation is out there these days.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Thanks for posting this article.
So much misinformation is out there these days.
citizenzen
Mar 28, 11:49 AM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Aduntu
Apr 22, 11:55 PM
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
EricNau
Apr 25, 12:02 AM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:34 PM
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
I'm happy to ditch Comcast's 25 shopping channels, in favor of a paid siubscription model, but I'm guessing that the cable & satellite companies are going to do HD a heck of a lot better than Apple.
Actually, HDMI allows the display (TV, monitor,etc) to decrypt and decode the HD content at full resolution. That means the content is still encrypted even after leaving a PC, iTV, etc. so you can't copy it.
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
I think Apple will have a wireless solution out to handle the streaming content: if not, that is what Gigabit ethernet is for on the device. Home Theatre enthusiasts will gladly string cat 5 cable for this: most homes in the past 8 years are wired for this anyway.
peskaa
Mar 14, 04:20 PM
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
Because they're quite valid? Okay, it's not the same as washing with soap, but the odd X-Ray for the patient isn't going to do anything to their radiation levels. Even if you have to get them yearly, it still adds up to nothing.
But the operator? Depending how busy they are, they can do over 30 in a single day, 5+ days a week. Taking 50mrem X-rays, towards the worst case, that could be 1500mrem a day, 7500 a week, 350,000 a year.
That's around 530 times a normal yearly dose, without touching on MRI or other medical imaging that uses higher doses. Of course they stand behind a protective screen.
Because they're quite valid? Okay, it's not the same as washing with soap, but the odd X-Ray for the patient isn't going to do anything to their radiation levels. Even if you have to get them yearly, it still adds up to nothing.
But the operator? Depending how busy they are, they can do over 30 in a single day, 5+ days a week. Taking 50mrem X-rays, towards the worst case, that could be 1500mrem a day, 7500 a week, 350,000 a year.
That's around 530 times a normal yearly dose, without touching on MRI or other medical imaging that uses higher doses. Of course they stand behind a protective screen.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 08:55 AM
Before everyone jumps to conclusions and spreads fear mongering ... as I said this will not be like Chernobyl.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.
While we are all on the same page and wish for the best news possible for the region ... we need to look at this with proper perspective.
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and happened in a country known at the time to reject outside help.
What is unfolding in Japan will be dealt with by the very best experts the World has to offer.
I have complete confidence no matter how this turns ... The Japanese Government will do what is right for the people who live there.
IMO ... this will be under control quite soon. Watching it on the news and the Internet is almost pathetic ... the Media seems to want this to get bigger.
We all wish the best for everyone affected by this tragedy.