bigchief
May 5, 12:01 PM
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call. If I started having dropped calls I would change carriers.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
spazzcat
May 5, 01:28 PM
Does this data have number of calls vs number of dropped calls? It looks like they just asked people if they have had a dropped call? I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
beaster
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Nail on the head, imo.
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
dante@sisna.com
Oct 29, 02:44 AM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 12, 11:27 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
This earthquake ranks 5th for strongest earthquakes accurately recorded.
It shifted the Earth four inches on its axis. If I understand correctly the 2010 Chilean earthquake actually shifted the Earth's axis. I wonder how often either of these events happen.
EDIT: The JPL now thinks that the Japan earthquake shifted the Earth's axis. I've found out this occurrence is somewhat "common".
![wallpaper one piece. One Piece [Nami] Wallpaper](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tTjYrLc4rCcylzENVUj36nk1Ps59KvwXF6MxsFfCgML7F2u15AcRkhrpwv0AZQZT4AYu0l1fkCD2TDrzoYXbWJ3EqXpt1L4z2oHP6GGC5xgrpkS08CD3Lg3UuLm6LiVbbP9e91LrIAMTTsb0-R9dfqlmu4OhJHyxtxIJwU2t25_WRg9C11hVujK4alrNg5I_Bgwnp3=s0-d "One Piece [Nami] Wallpaper")
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:23 AM
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
Fads refer to a period of time, not its popularity during that time. For the iPad to be a fad, it will have to lose its popularity over the next year or so.
Fads refer to a period of time, not its popularity during that time. For the iPad to be a fad, it will have to lose its popularity over the next year or so.
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Multimedia
Oct 2, 06:07 PM
Since the 2.33GHz Clovertown processors are priced the same as the 3GHz Woodcrests - $851, I think it's fair to say the current 3GHz Quad Core Mac Pro costs about $825 per core while the 8-core 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pros will cost only about $412.50 per core. That looks like real progress to me. On the GHz front, the current one running @ 12GHz is about $275 per GHz of power while the 8-core running @ 18.64GHz is about $177 per GHz of power. That looks like real progress as well. :)
SactoGuy18
Mar 13, 06:12 AM
I think people have to realize the reactors at Fukushima--while the fuel rods may have melted down--is NOT anywhere close to a major catastrophe like what happened at Chernobyl, where the overheated uranium fuel literally turned the graphite moderator blocks into an explosive bomb and there was no containment structure to hold back the massive release of the fallout from that explosion.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:09 AM
You have completely missed the point.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:22 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Big name is big name.
And yeah, really garbage. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
Pretty impressive, I'd say. But it won't just be Epic. Others are and will follow. Rest assured.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:41 PM
Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
joemama
Sep 20, 07:18 PM
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
Dooger
Apr 28, 08:14 AM
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
I remember this happened during the pokemon phenomenon. And Charlie Sheen's one man show keeps selling out too. What's your point?
latergator116
Mar 20, 06:41 PM
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law.
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
One Piece Wallpaper Sanji by
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:27 PM
nixd2001:
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
theBB
Sep 12, 04:52 PM
I don't want to watch movies on my computer, so this sounds like a great product. I assume I can hook a USB drive with movies or music and download iTunes products directly to that same drive without a need for a computer. If I hook iTV to ethernet, maybe that drive can even become a file server of some sort. I can justify the cost of iTV if I can use it as a music streaming device, print server and file server. Let's see how many of these features will actually be there. :)
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
However, the price point for movies is wrong for me. I started using Netflix instead of going to Blockbuster, because of price and wider selection. Apple's offer is more than double the price for a movie, even without the cost of iTV unless I watch them twice or more. Apple's library is bound to be smaller for a long time to come as well. I guess instant gratification is the only saving grace. Well, considering I've never bought a TV show or music video, maybe I am not in the target audience anyways.
ChazUK
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it.
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
citi
Apr 15, 01:03 PM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' they're is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
Doraemon
Aug 29, 02:15 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
That by far the stupidest thing, I have read in a very long time. It's plain absurd.
That by far the stupidest thing, I have read in a very long time. It's plain absurd.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar