Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:34 PM
In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
Dance-Widescreen-X-Ray-Hd-Desktop-Wallpaper%25255B2%25255D.jpg "desktop wallpaper hd")
MrMacMan
Oct 9, 06:55 PM
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless. They don't have the apps and other wounderful features.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:50 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:36 PM
Javajedi, what you've done with your benchmarking is very helpful and I believe provides much insight. I too was surprised to see that the PowerPC performed as poorly as it did. Sorry if I missed you addressing this, but did you use GCC 3.x on the PPC?
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
There are a few conclusions I could draw from this performance data:
1) AltiVec acceleration is crucial to attain performance competitive with x86.
2) In the best case, AltiVec-accelerated code will perform several times faster than optimized x86 code. However, the best case is very rare and limited to specialized tasks like BLAST, RC5, SETI, certain Photoshop filters, and so on.
3) In the worst case, AltiVec-optimized code will perform barely any better or perhaps even worse than non-optimized code.
4) The G4's integer and floating-point units are extremely weak.
4a) Even MHz-for-MHz, they appear to be slower than those of the Pentium 4.
4b) The 750FX's integer unit is stronger than the Pentium 4's clock-for-clock, but considering the Pentium 4 is clocked 4x higher at the moment, it does about 4x better overall.
5) The c't SPEC benchmarks from a while back (the only source of G4 SPEC results I'm aware of) weren't that far off.
I'm disappointed but not surprised to see that gopher has split from the thread. Oh well, I'm sure he'll reappear at a later date oblivious to everything that has just been presented in this thread.
Alex
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 11:17 AM
Closed-mouthed officials, and open-mouthed media.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
mtbgtr
Nov 12, 09:08 PM
Not sure why anyone would care that an android device would surpass iPhone in 2012 when we will all be dead on December 21, 2012 anyways. :cool:
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:33 AM
Ahh, good catch! But that's before the iPad was even released... not sure what Al meant by his comment...
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
Trio-Widescreen-X-Ray-Hd-Desktop-Wallpaper%255B2%255D.jpg "Trio: Widescreen X Ray Desktop")
Bonte
Sep 20, 02:00 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
r.j.s
May 2, 11:30 AM
At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
belovedmonster
Sep 12, 03:37 PM
I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD.
Thats where having your Mac Mini in the living room comes into play. Its basically just a box to interface from a computer to the TV, where you put the computer is up to you, and in this case why not have a Mac Mini in the living room?
Thats where having your Mac Mini in the living room comes into play. Its basically just a box to interface from a computer to the TV, where you put the computer is up to you, and in this case why not have a Mac Mini in the living room?
Multimedia
Oct 12, 10:51 AM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:Did you just get the 2007 model? If so how do you like it? Can't you lobby sales to give you the credit? You bought while the coupon was in effect - just overlooked it. It's another $96 off man. Worth asking about. Get one first then call sales.
c.hilding
Oct 26, 08:55 PM
Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
3N16MA
Apr 9, 02:33 PM
Edit: Post too long. I doubt anyone would read it. :D
chrono1081
Apr 20, 08:37 PM
Go to Folder Option, select View pane, check "Show hidden files, folders and drives". Click Apply. Windows worked like this for decades.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
Nope, doesn't work that way for many viruses. Even if you have show hidden files and folders and show hidden system files check to show they still don't necessarily show thats the problem, its either a bug in the OS or something legit that people are exploiting. You can't even get them in command prompt but you can see them when plugged into other OS's. They are usually in a folder along with a script that does something to keep them hidden, or something somewhere else keeps them hidden.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
rugbyboy
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
Now see its a step in the right direction to be sure. There will be features announced which will make it more attractive
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
takao
Mar 13, 06:47 AM
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
No comments:
Post a Comment