Eidorian
Oct 26, 09:15 PM
I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
zaphon
Apr 20, 11:25 PM
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
Gaelic1
Nov 1, 12:21 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:46 PM
gay behaviour was tolerated in Rome though lesbian behaviour was not.
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much… *sigh*
:p
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much… *sigh*
:p
aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
Trishul
Oct 30, 08:59 PM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
alent1234
Aug 26, 07:35 AM
my wife used to complain about dropped calls and poor signal at a military base in Long Island. i see a few dead zones once in a while in NYC. in laws have dumb phones on AT&T and never complain. my wife and I moved them from Verizon to get on a family plan
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
idevSteve
Apr 21, 09:33 AM
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
So you can't watch the Wizard of OZ and listen to Dark Side of the Moon at the same time? Get a real phone. :D
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
So you can't watch the Wizard of OZ and listen to Dark Side of the Moon at the same time? Get a real phone. :D
jholzner
Oct 7, 02:15 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
Multimedia
Oct 14, 12:31 PM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.I may have jumped the gun. Maybe it's not too much more. When I look at the published price of each 3GHz Woodcrest $851 and each 2.33GHz Clovertown $851, I can live with +$800 for either upgrade. ;)Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited. And each 2.66GHz Clovertown is published as $1172 so I'm surmising a + $1100 - $3599 - could be expected for top of the line Fall '06 8-Core Mac Pro - only $300 more than last year's Quad G5. :eek:
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
Plus once Clovertown ships, seems like Intel would begin lowering the price of Woodcrest to their customers as well. So I think you may be right. Wouldn't hurt. :p
Ain't technological progress astounding and fun? :D
Spectrum
Aug 30, 10:08 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
nagromme
Apr 15, 09:43 AM
Great program! These are really well done; worth seeing for just about anyone, not just kids thinking of harming themselves.
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
In fact, speaking as a straight kid who was bullied, the advice and commentary here DOES apply to me, and would have been encouraging, even if this particular program is in response to a cluster of LGBT suicides. (And a program like this, specific to LGBT kids, certainly is called for: they face many of the same challenges anyone else does, but they do face unique challenges too, for sure. Other programs have addressed bullying in general, which is great as well.)
malohkan
Oct 7, 11:47 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:51 AM
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
QUANTICO, Va. � An HIV-positive Navy chaplain was sentenced Thursday to two years in prison after pleading guilty to forcible sodomy and other charges. Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, 42, of Burke, Va., was sentenced after entering a plea agreement at his court-martial at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in northern Virginia. Lee admitted having sex with an Air Force officer without disclosing that he had HIV and forcing himself on a U.S. Naval Academy midshipman. Marine spokesman Maj. Tim Keefe said after Thursday�s hearing that nobody is known to have contracted HIV from Lee. Lee, a Catholic priest, was assigned to the academy from 2003 to 2006 and later to Quantico. He was relieved of his duties in June. The forcible sodomy occurred in the fall of when the midshipman was in his junior year. The midshipman, who was not identified, had previously received counseling from Lee, and said he allowed Lee to perform oral sex on him because he was intimidated by Lee�s status as a chaplain.
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
QUANTICO, Va. � An HIV-positive Navy chaplain was sentenced Thursday to two years in prison after pleading guilty to forcible sodomy and other charges. Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, 42, of Burke, Va., was sentenced after entering a plea agreement at his court-martial at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in northern Virginia. Lee admitted having sex with an Air Force officer without disclosing that he had HIV and forcing himself on a U.S. Naval Academy midshipman. Marine spokesman Maj. Tim Keefe said after Thursday�s hearing that nobody is known to have contracted HIV from Lee. Lee, a Catholic priest, was assigned to the academy from 2003 to 2006 and later to Quantico. He was relieved of his duties in June. The forcible sodomy occurred in the fall of when the midshipman was in his junior year. The midshipman, who was not identified, had previously received counseling from Lee, and said he allowed Lee to perform oral sex on him because he was intimidated by Lee�s status as a chaplain.
DeathChill
Apr 21, 07:53 AM
Ouch, it must really have hurt Apple that Android *smartphones* outsold all Apple iOS *devices* worldwide in Q1 (40 million Android smartphones compared to 32 million iOS devices). So they now are making again strange comparisons that only cover *one* market and *phones* vs. *devices.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 10:10 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
If more people added the chronic agitators to their Ignore list, no one would see their drivel, hence no one would respond to it, hence those of us who had long ago added them to our Ignore list wouldn't have to see their quoted drivel.
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
ATD
Sep 26, 03:52 PM
Intel has a prototype CPU with 80 [yes Eighty] cores that they claim will be in production systems in 5 years (eighty cores each at 3.16 GHz)
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
:D Now that's a render farm!!
http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+cores+in+five+years/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?tag=nefd.lede
:D Now that's a render farm!!
noahtk
Apr 9, 04:16 PM
Pay off Sony for PSP ports!!!
leekohler
Apr 23, 10:38 AM
Two strikes for you as a gaytheist.
Yes- we're the enemies of God, America and freedom dontcha know. :)
Yes- we're the enemies of God, America and freedom dontcha know. :)