toddybody
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Thank goodness for people that are able to have a neutral mentality. That much is refreshing and encouraging. You all have a FABULOUS day! (I gotta go out and buy something to wear for the Lady Gaga concert tonight!) :p
Alejandro FTW!!!!!
Alejandro FTW!!!!!
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:41 AM
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance! If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
citizenzen
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean ... ?
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 08:56 PM
We will ride out this storm just as we rode out the last, the one before that etc
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
there's no reason why the church can't continue for their believers if it learns to respect the rights of those who don't believe in its teachings
skunk
Mar 14, 06:34 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:35 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
Not true at all. Almost everything that run under Linux will run on the Mac. Linux is an entire OS with thousands of apps. 90% of that runs on the Mac
darkplanets
Mar 14, 03:16 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..
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
That's what I mean by tin foil hats... it really isn't bad for you, unless you're getting mutliple does every day. This is why the technician stands behind shielding... without it their average exposure would be astronomical, consider the math alone. Lets say a technician gives 20 x-rays in one day... you can do it from here.
Did you even read what I posted? You may believe in the linear no threshold model (which you clearly do), but if people in Denver Colorado get 1000 mrem a year and statistically have no ill effects, how can you even say that? An xray clearly isn't bad for you. At all. You get at least 310 mrem of exposure from the environment itself yearly. Also, do you know about biological systems at all? If you did, you'd realize that radiation exposure isn't that bad, and that genetic repair is incredibly commonplace.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
Unfortunately, I have the same distrust issue as you do, with the only difference being me not trusting most news media for scientific facts and extrapolations. Many so called "experts" called on for media usually are highly political or vocal people usually removed from day to day science, and typically have an agenda of some sort. Like you, I don't trust the Japanese government entirely either.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own. No sense yelling fire if there isn't one. I'm not saying that there won't ever be issues, just that I believe that there isn't a major issue right now (and if they were up to par on safety features, we shouldn't have even gotten this far).
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
The reason I say if is because there's no proof either way. Everyone's speculating right now; no one has access to the core. The core temperature sensors aren't working. It could be a partial meltdown, it could not be. Nevertheless, as long as it remains contained, there wont be a safety issue. Remember that BWRs generate heat even with the control rods; if one of those rods became damaged, heat output would increase.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it. I fully understand the lack in confidence you feel; it never should have gotten to the boric acid seawater. That said, they should have had multiple redundant systems for backup generators, as is required in many places. Furthermore, since the rest of their grid is up, why don't they have an electric pump there? The military has large industrial grade pumps...
See, this event doesn't scream the lack of nuclear safety to me, it screams the lack of proper handling and maintenance of basic safety protocols. With systems in place elsewhere in the world, this never would have gotten this far.
GeekLawyer
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
This is awesome of these employees to do. I love Apple, which must have given its blessing. We all know that Apple normally gags its employees.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
TennisandMusic
Apr 21, 02:46 PM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 15, 10:25 AM
Of course Apple would do something like this
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 05:57 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 08:35 PM
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
inkswamp
Oct 26, 03:49 AM
If history serves as a template for the future
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.
balamw
Apr 13, 05:17 PM
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
NTFS does not have a public/licensable specification or implementation. NTFS-3G was developed by reverse engineering and building on the HPFS spec. This is also one of the reasons many flash drives and SD Cards and devices still only support FAT32 or exFAT.
B
NTFS does not have a public/licensable specification or implementation. NTFS-3G was developed by reverse engineering and building on the HPFS spec. This is also one of the reasons many flash drives and SD Cards and devices still only support FAT32 or exFAT.
B
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 03:08 PM
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
You don't understand because you can't see the big picture.
milo
Jul 13, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
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. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
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. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
toodeep
Sep 20, 04:07 AM
Paraphrasing @emotion: "it's an mpeg-2 world".
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
G58
Feb 17, 05:45 AM
That is pretty delusional talk right there. The iPhone is superior...how? I can tell you that I like the iPhone UI better but that is where it ends. The droid marketplace is better or will become better (mostly because it is open source). I have already seen some apps that do a better job than their counterpart on the iPhone. Now don't get me wrong, the App Store has SO MANY more choice but it wouldn't surprise me if this quickly changes. The Android Marketplace is still relatively new....
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 03:15 PM
OK, so you want a completely independent tablet that does not communicate with anyone or anything unless you want it to but can still be useful as is. I don't think you are going to enjoy the next decade. That world is being pushed aside by the connected future. So while you will be able to get the tablet you want, it won't be the tablet most people will want.
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
You think me young for thinking most PCs are mostly useless without Net connectivity. Fine, make your assumptions. What I was talking about is the business cloud present and future where PCs are becoming front end devices to cloud databases.
As for personal use, most people don't even notice the hardware today any more than most people can tell you the ignition timing specs of their car. They just want to use their apps (drive their car). I think this is a healthy development because the computer should fade into the background for the next level of progress to be made. Don't worry, techies and hackers, you'll always have your devices to take apart (just as anyone can hack a car's engine if they wish). But the vast majority of computer users just want a device that gives them their apps. A new world awaits them, and they are going to love it.
Will the "cloud" be hosted by Amazon in their North Virginia datacenter? :eek:
I'm sure users will love that "cloud", at least as much as they love the Playstation network...
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
LeeTom
Mar 18, 01:55 PM
OPTION 3 - they're sniffing tcp/ip traffic and depending on the traffic can identify if the originating IP has a private addressing scheme. As an ISP, I imagine that you have some leeway to sniff traffic to solve problems, but I'm not sure if this would count as legitimate.
jragosta
Mar 18, 04:43 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
No comments:
Post a Comment